Off The Bus on HuffingtonPost.com

Dave Murphy: So You Want Health Care Reform? Boycotting Whole Foods Won't Help

2009-08-27T18:43:46Z

The health care reform debate has provoked any number of crazy opinions, including the far-right fantasies of death panels or that Medicare isn't a government-funded program. Two weeks ago, Whole Foods founder and CEO John Mackey added his own musings to the list with an editorial in the Wall Street Journal condemning "Obamacare" and any government health care option in the U.S.

Unfortunately for Whole Foods, Mackey's foray into the health care debate hasn't gone unnoticed. Some progressives, incensed that the head of one of their preferred companies is helping pollute the debate, have expressed their ire via a boycott of Whole Foods.

While well intended, this is a bad strategy.

A boycott of Whole Foods won't make a difference on health care, and it might actually hurt something progressives care about -- organic and natural farmers.

Whole Foods Founder John Mackey Steps in It

With an audacity that borders on self-destructive, Mackey, a well-known "Libertarian," began his op-ed on U.S. health care reform with a bizarre quote from Margaret Thatcher about socialism and other people's money, and it went downhill from there.

Rather than see access to safe and affordable health care as a basic necessity in a civilized nation, Mackey calls any proposed government reform a "massive new health-care entitlement."

For many progressives, Mackey's invoking the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to deny an individual "right" to basic health care struck a powder keg of emotion. Mark Rosenthal, a playwright based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, Mackey's, was one of them.

"I was disgusted," says Rosenthal after reading the editorial. "I was nauseous at the thought of shopping at Whole Foods ever again. It made me want to vomit."

So Rosenthal did want anybody who feels rage and indignation does today: he started a Facebook group.

In nearly two weeks, the Facebook boycott has garnered some 29,000 online fans, while Mackey's tirade has created a cottage industry of blog posts regarding Whole Foods, its CEO and the boycott itself.

Why They Shop Elsewhere

After weeks of watching the health care debate be dominated by town hall protesters, and seeing the potential for reform slide away into a Clintonesque compromise, Internet savvy progressives jumped at the chance to focus their anger on one of their own--Whole Foods.

As someone who works in sustainable agriculture and is a progressive Democrat, I've seen many a "friend" who has signed the Facebook page. Many are serial joiners, others have longtime beefs with Whole Foods for its perceived litany of sins, and others just like a good fight. When a protest is just one click away - why not satisfy that urge for revenge.

Target the Real Enemies of Health Care Reform

But the facts remains, no matter how many people join the boycott or wave a protest sign outside Whole Foods, it won't bring a single person in the country better health care. If progressives want to achieve a public option, they need to stay focused on the true obstacles to reform. Companies like United Health Care and the Republican party that have helped fan the flames, the Blue Dog Democrats, and the Gang of Six that have been dragging their feet on health care reform since the beginning.

One good way to do this would be to make contributions to progressive members of Congress who stand up for health care.

Another is to target the Blue Dogs. Over at Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas is working on holding Blue Dog Congressman Jim Cooper from Tennessee accountable; while Howard Dean is mounting a Senate whip count campaign against wayward Senators to push them in support of the public option.

The public option will only come through organizing politically against members of Congress who actually vote on health care. Everything else is political theater. It may soothe the pain, but it won't actually cure what ails our nation.

Beware The Unintended Consequences

While Mackey has made his company an easy target in this debate, Whole Foods is not the enemy. The small natural foods retail company that Mackey helped found in 1980 has been a national leader in many progressive causes for years, which may be why his editorial stung so much.

But for anyone who has followed Whole Foods for any period of time, Mackey's libertarian views should not be a surprise.

And putting his politics aside, I'm far more concerned about the collateral damage that could be done to Whole Foods suppliers, mainly organic and natural farmers and some of the smaller and midsized organic companies whose products Whole Foods sells.

Despite what many critics of Whole Foods say, as a company it has done much more good than it has harm and is largely responsibly for helping popularize organic and natural foods in the U.S. In doing so, Mackey and Whole Foods have helped create a market for thousands of farmers across America to grow food in ways that do not harm the environment, farm animals or consumer's health.

And while Mackey may not support universal health care as a right, his life's work and that of his company has increased Americans access to food that is safer to eat, more nutritious, and will contribute less to the burden of the current health care crisis than his competitors.

Unfortunately, the only responsible thing left to do is to ask John Mackey to step down as the CEO of a company that he helped build and to ask him to go it alone, just as he believes the uninsured citizens of this country should do. Whole Foods, and the farmers they help survive shouldn't suffer, but the author of that WSJ editorial should for putting America's organic and sustainable farmers in harms way.

Joan E. Dowlin: When Hatred Turns into Insanity

2009-08-25T14:18:56Z

The words pierced through me like an arrow going straight through my heart. "You're a Freak! You're dirty! You're not a real woman! You hate your parents because you gave them no grandchildren! You are turning my children gay!"

I knew it was the ranting nonsense of a psychotic person, but the words hurt none the less. They hurt because many people were taught these myths that have been used against me and my gay brothers and sisters for centuries.

So called Christians (including the above mentiioned) who say they are followers of Jesus Christ seem to have forgotten his teachings. He said: "Love your enemies", "Turn the other cheek," and "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Sounds like love, peace, and forgiveness to me; not hatred, hostility, and judgement.

I also challenge any of you pseudo-Christians to find a quote in the Bible from Jesus even mentioning homosexuality. It's just not there! If it were such a sin, wouldn't He say so? Why is it not one of the Ten Commandments?

Why do you believe this toxic dribble about gays being immoral, that God condemns us, and that being homosexual is a choice?

I have my own theory about why some Evangelicals refuse to believe we were born gay. If it's genetic then God made us this way. And that would mean a perfect God made a mistake because to them, people who fall in love with someone of their own sex are mistakes, rejects, perverts, abnormal, freaks, queers, fill in the blank. So they believe the myth that it is a choice.

One question, all ye "choice believers": Why would one choose to be gay when we are called sinners, pedophiles, and abominations; can't legally marry in most places; can't visit our dying partners in the hospital; and face persecution, bullying, heckling, condemnation, and even death?

Why do you think it took me until I was 29 to come out of the closet? For years I tried desperately to be "straight." I wanted to please my parents and my church. I was miserable!

Fortunately, I came to my senses and stopped running away from who I am. I now feel blessed to be gay because it made me have to look at myself and God so I could take a leap of faith to declare my true inner self. It has brought me a "peace that surpasses all understanding."

The only real choice a GLBT person has is in deciding to accept one's true self or not. Some have chosen to stay in the closet, others to be reformed into being heterosexual (a path that has me really baffled), and a few have become nuns and priests to avoid the issue altogether.

However, as the "Focus on the Family's" failed "Love Won Out" program (an attempt to turn gays into straights) has shown, your can't change one's nature. No person can make another gay or not gay.

To me, a person's sexuality is a personal thing. I'm not into "outing" people.

All I can do is share my experience, face the onslaught, refuse to be anyone's scapegoat, stand up for myself and the GLBT community, be proud of who I am, know that God Loves Me, and realize that one day Love will win out over hatred because the Light is stronger than the Darkness.

David Doody: Watch: Franken and Klobuchar Speak Out at Senate Judiciary Committee Vote (Video)

2009-07-29T17:45:37Z

Chris Steller, writing for The Minnesota Independent on the Senate Judiciary Committee vote yesterday, said that "Al Franken spewed fire and Amy Klobuchar threw brimstone," adding, "Franken raked the current Court and Klobuchar decried bias against women on the bench."

Breaking out of the "mild-mannered mantle of a first-month senator" Franken "threw down a gauntlet over high-court rulings he termed 'judicial activism,'" Steller writes. "With a vehemence not yet seen in his short tenure in Washington, D.C., Franken took issue with rulings on abortion, voting rights, price fixing, age discrimination, and corporate entanglement in elections," while "Klobuchar cast Sotomayor as an Everywoman Jurist whose image had been misrepresented by Republicans harping on her now-infamous 'wise Latina' statement."

"She knows the law, she knows the Constitution, but she also knows America," Klobuchar said, adding, "Where I come from, asking tough questions and showing very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of a judge."

Video of Al Franken:

Video of Amy Klobuchar:

_______________________________________________________________________

David Doody is the founding editor of InDigest Magazine and the Blog Editor at Guernica Magazine.

Miles J. Zaremski: A Lot of Tired Feet Can Reform Health Care

2009-06-26T16:03:45Z

Due to my background, an inquiry of me was made to join two organizations, the Illinois branch of Healthcare For American Now (HCAN) and Illinois Main Street Alliance, in their efforts to meet with Members of Congress from Illinois on June 24/25 regarding health care reform. HCAN is a nationwide effort representing some 30 million to bring about change in health care. Main Street Alliance represents small businesses countrywide, including 500 or so in Illinois.

Led by Illinois Campaign Director John Gaudette, we headed off to Washington, D.C. for what seemed to be a whirlwind of non-stop meetings on two hot summer's days with various Congressional leaders from Illinois, including our state's two United States Senators at an early morning "coffee" they hosted. Of course, all of our elected official's offices are spread throughout six House and Senate office buildings, which seemed like walking miles of hallways, as each building is a city block until itself (the three Senate buildings are on one side of the Capital and the three for House members on the other side). Then there was a cocktail reception in the evening of the first day for those who came to town to support healthcare reform, including having some small talk with Edie Falco, who I found out later was a lead performer in a very popular TV series (which I admit I had never watched).

But my walking took me to a rally in Upper Senate Park (next to the Russell Senate Office building) which, by some estimates, approached 10,000 persons who came from several states. It was organized under the auspices of HCAN and included folks from labor, unions, health care, lay persons and the like. There were many speakers, including the likes of Senators Schumer (NY), Menendez (NJ), Mel Martinez (Fla.), nurses and physicians, DNC's Howard Dean, labor and union leaders, and stories from ordinary folks throughout the U.S. who told their individual horror stories of having lost health care coverage or the inability to pay for it and then having had to face the consequences. But walking around and through the crowd gave me a sense of what all Americans, as if in microcosm, must be facing on a daily basis. What I experienced was a true grass-roots movement and heaven help any elected official who stands in its way. The train has left the station; the steam roller is moving onward. There was intense passion and determination in this crowd for real reform once and for all... regardless of station in life. I would venture to say that if another rally is held, thousands more will show up.

What was perhaps of equal interest is that within, say, 500 yards of this rally was an ornate, marbled corner conference room on the third floor of the Cannon Senate Office Building in which a couple of hours earlier and going on at the same time as the rally was a session of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions ("H.E.L.P.") Subcommittee -- the one Teddy Kennedy heads but is unable to attend due to his own illness. This committee was marking up, i.e., making changes, discussing amendments, and providing technical corrections, to the draft of Kennedy's health care reform bill.

This is one of two bills that will come out of the Senate, the other from the Finance Committee headed by Senator Baucus. I attended a portion of the HELP Subcommittee meeting, which found at the outset speeches being given by some of its members, serving more for the cameras and their home state constituents perhaps than for any other reason. Members who spoke while I was there included Sens. Gregg, Dodd (acting chair) and Sanders. Others present at the time included Sens. Menendez, Casey, Mikulski, and Enzy. Senator Gregg, who supposedly has a handle on all matters financial, claimed that the HELP bill stands to fail because it is too costly and fails to satisfy what President Obama wants: coverage for all, allowing Americans to keep the coverage they have, and not bending the cost curve established by the Congressional Budget Office. He said that health care reform would leave $2.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities with 30 million citizens still being left without coverage. Dodd chimed in that at any one time 80-90 million are without coverage.

But during the time I sat in, it was Bernie Sanders who gave the most stirring and impassioned presentation as he sat around the four sided table at which all his colleagues on the subcommittee sat. He certainly did not pull any punches. Filled with statistics on how the insurance, health care, and pharmaceutical industries are filled with waste, inefficiencies and assertions of fraud (from lawsuits either that went to verdict or were settled), Sanders said that the U.S. doesn't have a health care system, and somehow his colleagues forget that the respected Institute of Medicine reports that 20,000 citizens die each year without access to a physician's care. Yet there are also 1300 private insurance companies in business to make a profit and not provide care and coverage to those millions who need it. Sanders made such an impact that Gregg felt compelled to offer a short reply, saying that he certainly does not wish to stand in the way of reforming our health care system, but its costs is what we should be most concerned. If only Kennedy was sitting at the table, what an inspiration his remarks would have made, particularly in light of the roadblocks Gregg seemed to be putting up.

The juxtaposition of this group of Senators with the public rally across a driveway from the Cannon building provided quite a juxtaposition -- Senators trying to put a handle on what to do knowing that the health care system is in crisis, yet those they were elected to serve attending a rally a short distance away, telling them to reform health care in a meaningful way, and that it must be done this year! The message from the constituents was clear: any reform must include a strong public health care option and the elimination of pre-existing conditions as a bar to coverage. It could not have been more emphasized that more choice means less cost! After all, competition for products and services is the sine qua non of American capitalism.

So, it is hard to figure out why opponents to a public option say that one more player in the health care marketplace will cause millions to lose coverage. If anything, the more competition the better it is for all consumers of health care. If the private market is as good as it says it is, consumers will continue to flock to the products it provides. If it is not because there is a better (cheaper) alternative, then either the private market will adjust to meet the better alternative, or fail. And, of course, if the new kid on the healthcare coverage market provides an inferior product, few Americans will purchase it. In either case, having a public option is a win-win for every person in our country. I guess if opponents to a great idea, like a public plan, can't debate it on the merits, the next best thing, politically speaking, is to pander to fear and anxiety of those who have no information on the subject by making up facts that do not exist -- like we are hearing now-a-days about how a public plan will cause millions of citizens to lose their insurance. To this I say, bunk!

Atop this blog, I spoke about how tired feet can, and will, reform healthcare. Indeed, at the end of our two days in Washington our group was tired, our feet were sore and achy, but we accomplished a lot -- a tribute to those who led out effort. But I suspect this was no different than other Americans who traveled to DC to attend the rally and to also meet with their elected representatives. But feet being worn out from all the walking on hot summer's days to convince elected officials to vote for real health care reform pails in comparison to not getting a health care reform bill that President Obama wants to sign in the fall of this year.

Joan E. Dowlin: The Lightning Rod Named Sarah Palin

2009-06-17T17:40:59Z

Love or hate her, you "gotta" admit, she attracts attention. She's a lightning rod for controversy. Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, the first woman GOP Vice Presidential nominee is still eliciting a media frenzy six months after the election. Take for example this recent feud between Palin and David Letterman. The video on the Huffington Post of her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show has received over 200,000 hits and 10,000 blogs. (www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/sarah-palin-today- show-in_n_214587.html)

My recent article published in the HuffPost: "Where is the Outrage by Feminists On Letterman's Sexist Remarks About Palin?" (www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-e-dowlin/where-is-the-outrage-by-f_b_214473.html) was filled with feedback about Palin, not the subject I wrote about (sexism and feminism.) Most of the blogs were critical of Governor Palin, some saying Letterman's remark about her being "slutty" was brought on by herself because of her appearance, and his joke about her daughter being "knocked up" by A-Rod was justified because "she paraded her children in public during the campaign."

I disagree with both of these premises. Firstly, blaming sexism on a woman's appearance reminds me of the old argument that women that are raped bring it on themselves because of the way they dress. This is absurd and in no way excuses a horrible crime against women. As for her daughter, I believe the children of politicians should be off limits even if she did become pregnant at seventeen. All politicians present their family to the public during their campaigns. Remember seeing Chelsea Clinton, Meghan McCain, Barbara and Jenna Bush, and even the Obama girls? Why is there a double standard for Sarah Palin?

Even Arianna Huffington has said that Palin is using this controversy for political purposes. (www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-discusses-iranian_b_215284.html). That may be but it doesn't change the fact that Letterman was out of line with his sexist and perverted "jokes."

Back to the question of the public's fascination of Palin: is it because she is a woman? I don't recall the first VP woman candidate (Rep. Geraldine Ferraro) being this much in the news after the 1976 election. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro). Why did Sarah Palin create such enthusiasm on the campaign trail drawing more supporters and excitement from the crowds than her running mate? Is it because she was new and different, a self made woman with an 80% home state approval rating taking on the old boy GOP network and the oil companies causing a conundrum for feminists because of her social conservative views?

Some thought (and hoped) she would go away after the election. But even after her missteps with the Gibson and Couric interviews; Trooper-Gate; her rantings against Obama (accusing him of palling around with a terrorist); her support of shooting wolves from helicopters; criticism of her wardrobe expenses; back stabbing by McCain staffers who said she thought Africa was a country, not a continent (something she denied saying) (www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/Palin-didn't-know-africa-i_n_141653.html); and a relentless assault on her intelligence from SNL skits with Tina Fey (www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-k_n_129956.html) to late night comedians, she is still drawing headlines. For example, at a recent Washington Republican fundraising dinner she upstaged the main speaker, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich just by being there. (www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/sarah-palin-shows-up-at-g_n_212904.html)

Is it that she represents soccer moms, Joe six-pack, and small town Americans that Obama once said were "bitter and cling to religion and guns"?

No one would doubt that she has charisma as shown by her VP debate performance. (www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/vp-debate-biden-palin-upd_n_130882.html). The question is will she be able to win over the moderate and independent factions of her party? Will her tarnished image from the campaign sink her as a viable candidate in 2012?

A lot can happen in three years but one thing is clear, Sarah Palin will get a lot of attention.

Benevolent merchant cited in drug sweep

2009-06-08T20:01:29Z

SHIRLEY, N.Y. — A New York convenience store owner who made headlines after showing mercy on a would-be robber has been accused of selling drug paraphernalia.

Shirley Express owner Mohammad Sohail's (so-HAYL) store on Long Island was one of seven businesses cited Tuesday. He's accused of violating state business laws.

Prosecutors say undercover officers bought bongs and pipe screens at the store three times in recent weeks.

Sohail said Thursday he did not know the items were not permitted to be sold.

It's not a criminal charge and is punishable by a fine of up to $30,000.

The merchant got attention this week when it was revealed that he gave an intended robber $40 and a loaf of bread if the man agreed never to steal again.

Obama Protested In Beverly Hills: Lt. Choi Gives Speech On Gay Rights (SLIDESHOW/VIDEO)

2009-05-28T12:58:43Z

Nearly a hundred protesters assembled Wednesday outside the Beverly Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, CA where President Obama hosted a Democratic Party fundraiser.

Protest organizers called for Obama to repeal the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that exempts openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arabic translator, was discharged from the Army when he declared he was gay on national television. His conviction that the military's policy is "a deadly poison" inspired him to lead the protest on Wednesday.

"There is a message that I want to give to Obama," said Choi. "Stop forcing our soldiers to hide. Let them be free to serve."

Undeterred by Tuesday's decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold the ban on gay marriage passed by voters in November, Choi said to the crowd, "We can't wait for somebody else to give us rights.... if we want rights, we have to fight for it. We have to earn it." Choi ended his speech the same way it began, chanting, "Love is worth it."

Pro-peace and anti-torture protesters took part in the demonstration as well.

Sandy Kaczmarski: It's the news, stupid

2009-04-24T00:10:46Z

A recent article in Editor and Publisher reports the number of reporters in newsrooms is down at a level not seen since the early 1980s. That hardly seems surprising since the so-called local newspapers have been swallowed up in recent years by greedy conglomerates like Gatehouse Media and we have heard the presses silenced at some of the country's biggest, most respected major newspapers.

I finally canceled the last local paper I subscribed to, the Daily Herald. I dropped the Kane County Chronicle months ago when their reporters stopped showing up at county board meetings during a contentious local election. Board meeting articles would show up days later, with a synopsis and quotes from the board president. So much for the Fourth Estate when the papers just call local government for a one-sided hand feed. How convenient.

The state of the newspaper business wasn't on my mind when me and my husband chose "State of Play" as our weekend at the movies.

I truly knew nothing about the film, only I expected a Chandra Levy thriller from the clips I'd seen during a week of Affleck's promotion (congressman's researcher dead, affair). The movie had me with the first shot of a disheveled chubby Crowe sitting in a cluttered cubicle of newspaper clippings in a newsroom. I loved it because I am one of those 57-year olds who started as a working journalist 25 to 30 years ago that Paul Dailing dismisses in his blogs as being a little out of touch with the new media.

Crowe was the Ed Hutcheson of Deadline--U.S.A., the Carl Bernstein of All The President's Men (too crusty to be the Redford part), Lou Grant of Lou Grant. In the end, good beat reporting and checking the facts, something Crowe's character emphasizes to his blogger pal after he gets the scoop, are what sell newspapers. Duh.

Dailing has good cause to pick at Jeff Jarvis. In his A Scenario for the Future of News, Jarvis explains his view of things to come:

News will no longer be controlled by a single company but will be collaborative. Well, this is precisely the decision that killed newspapers. There is no debate; newspapers are dead. When I looked at the Daily Herald Tri-Cities and Kaneland edition and read about communities miles away from the Tri-Cities and Kaneland, I decided it was time to stop paying them for the privilege of having something for my recycling bin. Sharing news is fine, but what nobody seems to get is you can't share stuff that nobody cares about at the expense of things your readers do care about.

The heart of local news organizations will be beats. Again, duh. This was emphasized by Crowe's character knowing just what to say to get past the no comment of the police commissioner and verify information. Covering a beat allows a reporter to get to know the players, the inner-workings necessary to be able to put the facts in a useful and significant context for the readers.

Editing will change. I hope so. Spell check only goes so far, and I got tired of the guessing game trying to figure out confusing and non-sensical sentences (oh, they probably mean "their" instead of "they're.")

Investigative journalism will continue. And that was the point of Crowe's character, that it is necessary to ask the questions, follow the hunch and verify what you know. This is the value of a professional journalist doing a professional job, to produce a valuable product.

And that, my friends, is why newspapers are dead. The head honchos decided to cut corners, looking only at the bottom line. They decided to sell the stupid idea of news sharing, making front pages "packages," creating a new network of "local" news from sources that are not local, and to push "niche" material gleaned from recycling news releases. They believed they could package this crap, change the banners and no one would notice that despite the town name, the front pages were all the same and as you turn the pages they are all the same.

At the end of the movie, the huge roll of paper for the web press is wheeled in and the presses roll. The only thing missing was Bogart's line from Deadline: "That's the press, baby," and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" boldly playing in the background. And the old AP wire machine clacking at the end of All The President's Men is replaced with a computer screen and cursor typing out news of the congressman's arrest.

These newspaper geniuses have run the papers and their companies into the ground so far they'll be showing up in China. They didn't think a quality product was worth anything. They honestly didn't think their readers would notice. And stop blaming the Internet.

It's interesting the Senate will hold hearings next month on the future of newspapers. The problem is newspapers won't fare any better than the financial markets and the car companies for the same reason -- they have to change the way they have been doing business and get back to providing a quality product that people want.

Forbes recently reported that in spite of the devastating job losses in the newspaper business, enrollment at journalism schools is up. Dailing, fresh out of Northwestern's J-school with his master's in "new media journalism," might be able to stop picking insignificant blogger fights with the likes of an equally insignificant Sarah Lacy and get a job teaching.

Despite my advanced years, I and countless other aging reporters have been actually using computers since the early '80s in newsrooms. I love the "new media," but I think what goes around comes around and newspapers will soon rise from the ashes. My computer will never replace the joy of sitting with a cup of coffee while turning the pages of my morning newspaper with newsprint on my fingers.

A Kindle while sitting on the can? I don't think so. Just ain't the same thing.

Sara Haile-Mariam: The Big Game Pitcher vs. the GOP

2009-03-17T20:50:00Z

Feeling a little overwhelmed earlier this week I asked my friend Chas for advice who responded with an unexpected question; "Do you know the difference between a great pitcher and a big game pitcher?" I didn't. "A great pitcher, when the pressure is on, lets the game affect him and starts speeding up instead of executing his pitching strategy. A big game pitcher, slows the game down."

After this conversation it dawned on me that President Obama is a big game pitcher. He was a big game Senator, and a big game candidate and he's brought his cool to the White House. Throughout the campaign the chattering class and democratic operatives freaked out more times than I care to count. "Sarah Palin!" "Reverend Wright!" "Bill Ayers!" the bases were loaded and they demanded a change in strategy. Team Obama was down at the bottom of the ninth, but rather than acquiesce to the call of change, they stayed the course. In retrospect the strategy was brilliant; it inspired voter confidence and ultimately Team Obama ended up securing a grand slam victory.

Months have gone by since that night, and although the game continues, the parameters of the game have changed. This time, it's not a game between "Democrats" and "Republicans." Perhaps it's framed to appear as if it is, but it can't be. Right now, the big game pitcher is up against the world, playing against time and history; trying to amend past mistakes while remaining cognoscente of how present decisions might impact future generations. Right now, we're all on Team Obama whether or not we like him or agree with his policies, we need the all star to come through, to end this inning quickly so that America might get another chance at bat.

The bases are loaded; health care, foreign wars, the economy. The crowd is still on his side, urging him on, confident that his cool demeanor will result in another grand slam victory. Although won't change his general strategy, he's insisted on calling on representatives from both sides of the aisle to offer insight on how to make his vision come to fruition. Still, the GOP refuses to acknowledge that we're on the same team, and eagerly continue to go after the big game pitcher. John Boehner recently remarked that the GOP should stop thinking of themselves as "legislators" and instead as "communicators". Over the last few months they've developed a strategy where they say no first and explain alternatives...maybe later?

So to those GOP "communicators", I have a very simple message to relay to you. One that I've heard articulated by members of my own generation, particularly those who supported Barack Obama. To be clear, as you aim to inject some "hip-hop" into you're party, we didn't support him because he asked us to stand up and make some noise, we supported him because he asked the Democratic party to stand up for the next generation, and he asked us to stand up for our own futures.

The stakes are too high to allow the viability of the GOP to serve as a metric for the success of this country. So I ask you to put aside politics and re-branding your party until after we've struck out the economic crisis.

I don't know when the success of an ideology came to take precedence over the well-being of our country. Some of you have vocalized your desire to see the President fail, determining that his failure is just what your party needs to rebound. If that's the case, then don't say no and hope you're right, and in four years you can run on his failed policies. Otherwise, engage in the debate and help him, help us. The GOP strategy as it stands right now will only further marginalize my generation, we're asking "Why?" and we're demanding a more sufficient justification than, "Because I said so". Why is it okay to spend a trillion dollars on a war abroad when it's not okay to invest 800 billion dollars into our own country? Why do you feel the need to attack the person proposing a solution (Socialist, Marxist, Radical) rather than the substance of the proposal? Why haven't you proposed any viable alternatives to any of President Obama's policies? Why can't you put off finding a Presidential candidate for 2012 until 2011?

I don't know, and frankly these questions barely scratch the surface. I've outlined what I think you should do, but so far it seems like a strategy that you're unlikely to pursue. So ask yourselves what is you're intention? To say no, block legislation, and try to communicate the country out of this crisis? It doesn't really seem feasible now does it.

I ask you, to consider the alternative, to cooperate with the President and to make bipartisianship a central component of your new platform. Cooperating will do more to re-brand you're party than any one policy proposal ever could, perhaps it's time you tried that for a change and then shoot to make you're own comeback, next season.

Yonah Freemark: Highways to Nowhere: The 7 Most Ridiculous New Roads Being Built With Stimulus Money

2009-03-17T14:44:00Z

Yonah Freemark writes about transportation issues for Infrastructurist.com

Last week, the president and vice president warned the 50 governors not to spend stimulus money on construction projects that are ill-advised and wasteful. With nearly $30 billion in highway funds in the bill, road building is a prime suspect for waste. Bad roads create sprawl and major environmental damage. We searched through shovel ready projects funded with stimulus money and found seven projects that should go back to the drawing board immediately. (See full article here.)

7. I-295 Loop in Fayetteville, NC - An 8-mile stretch of this freeway is slated to get $63 million for a construction start within the next few months. But it runs through rural land and is a recipe for the worst kind of sprawl. Meanwhile it would deprive the city center of economically valuable military traffic from Fort Bragg. So why are they doing it? Two of the key officials making the state funding list are from Fayetteville.

6. I-69 extension in Indiana - This 142 mile-long highway would cost an estimated $3.5 billion to build. Its effect on the sections south of Bloomington, where it will be built on "new terrain," would be devastating to rural life in the area, with 400 families affected by the route's construction and 2,800 acres of farmland paved over. More than 1,000 acres of forests would be cut down. There's a better alternative that would cost just half as much.

5. Widening I-93 in southern New Hampshire - The plan to expand this overcrowded road from four lanes today to eight along a 20-mile stretch between Salem and Manchester would cost of $750 million. But it ignores what is common knowledge among transportation experts: building more lanes simply creates more traffic. A better alternative: a parallel existing rail line, neglected for years, would offer the area's commuters a direct shot to downtown Boston.

4. I-66 in Kentucky - This $10 billion project is a disaster. The 420-mile route lies directly between I-64 and I-40, which are only three hours apart. In this rural area, a freeway simply isn't necessary as there is little traffic on existing roads. And since neighboring states have abandoned work on connecting segments, meaning that the highway would effectively dead-end into local roads at both ends. But the the most dire effects would be on the environment: The road would tear through the Appalachians and the Daniel Boone National Forest.

3. Grand Parkway in Houston, Texas - At 184 miles in length and a projected cost of $5.1 billion, Houston's fourth outer loop a world-class boondoggle. A 14-mile stretch of the corridor, funded by $181 million of stimulus money, would destroy some local prairie and parkland. The nonprofit group that is pushing the road, is made up major land developers, who see a profitable new frontier for exurban sprawl.

2. Intercounty Connector in the DC suburbs of Maryland - Former governor Parris Glendening thought this highway project would be an environmental disaster. But the 18 mile, $3 billion road seems to be going ahead, to the detriment of Maryland's ability to fund other transportation projects, like a much-needed new light rail lines in Baltimore. Worst of all, the highway won't even be much of a help in clearing the traffic on Washington's infamously congested Beltway--its net effect would be to increase the number of miles traveled by Marylanders in their cars.

1. I-65 Downtown Bridge in Louisville, Kentucky - This $4.1 billion project would create a 24-lane monstrosity along downtown Louisville's waterfront, eparating the city center from the Ohio river and cutting into a brand new park. Approximately 100 residential properties and 30 businesses would be taken for the project, and the enormous, ugly interchange of the three roads would loom above downtown. A much simpler and cheaper plan would open up the downtown waterfront and allow the for the construction of an attractive boulevard like San Francisco's Embarcadero.

Jonah Lalas: Time Running Out For Filipino Veterans

2009-03-09T17:37:00Z

Many thousands of Filipinos answered Roosevelt's call to join the U.S. forces fighting Japan in the Philippines, but had been denied the benefits they were promised until last month. When Obama's stimulus package passed, it contained a provision for a lump sum payment for these Filipino WWII veterans, which I wrote about as a "Victory for the Asian-American Community."

I later got messages from friends and fellow activists who have been working on the issue, deriding the provision as "hush money" and a "shallow gesture" because it falls tremendously short of the full equity we demanded.

But such is the nature and dilemma of reparations campaigns, whether it be for Japanese interment, the ethnic cleansing of American Indians, or slavery -- you never get the big number you want. And in the case of African Americans, they still have not gotten their "40 acres and a mule." However, it doesn't mean we don't recognize the significance of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or celebrate the election of our first African American president. While anger is what helps drive people into social justice movements, victories are part of what help people stay.

Still, I wanted to hear directly from a Filipino veteran who has been fighting for this issue for decades. I went to visit 87-year-old Faustino "Peping" Baclig, who lives in Los Angeles and got me involved in the Filipino Veteran's movement as a student.

When I asked him how he felt about the lump sum payment, his response was sobering. "Having gone through Bataan, the death march, and concentration camps, we are more realistic than idealistic," Manong Peping stated. "If there is something to help me during my old days, I need to pick it up, with reservations of course."

He told me that the issue of finding justice for the Filipino veterans was something that brought the entire community together. Given that, the government's recent action represents "not so much a victory for us [the veterans], but a victory for the Filipino community."

Manong Peping is still hurt by the "double blade" America brought on the veterans by denying them the same benefits and privileges received by others who shared the same trench and fought the same enemy. He said the provision "did not evoke any special feeling" because he had always expected America to make amends. "We still have faith in democracy," he told me. Now, Manong Peping said he and his fellow veterans plan to start working on issues of family reunification and extending the benefits to the widows of deceased veterans.

I also spoke with the executive director of the Filipino-American Service Group, Inc., Susan Espiritu Dilkes, who told me about the family of a dying veteran who recently contacted her about the lump sum payment. She brought the Veterans Affairs application form to his hospital bedside, where he was too ill to even sign his name. After notarizing his thumbprint and assisting his family in completing the forms, she hand-carried it with about 50 others to the VA building to begin processing. That was four days after Obama signed the stimulus package. Six days later, he passed away with the knowledge that his family would receive the money he should have gotten many years ago.

Ms. Dilkes told me of another family who came to see her to ask about the forms. Their veteran grandfather passed away three days after the bill was passed. They came to see her two days after his death. It was too late.

The stories she told me highlighted a larger potential dilemma. The Filipino veterans have only one year to claim the $15,000. There are over 18,000 veterans left, and Manong Peping estimates at least 4,000 in the United States. In order to ensure some justice is served, we need to make sure these veterans get the forms. Manong Peping walked alongside American GIs in the Bataan Death March over 67 years ago -- these are very elderly men who could certainly use assistance in paying for the medical bills and other costs that come with being nearly 90 years old. Some may only have a few months, or even days left. It would be a grave injustice for this bill to have passed and only a small number of veterans claim what should have been given to them years ago.

Mrs. Dilkes' organization does not have the funding to do a full fledged outreach program. There are other challenges. I contacted the VA and according to the person at the call center, they carry no statistics or lists of eligible veterans and are "relying on the veterans and their families" to contact them. They also have not posted the claim forms on the VA website and could not tell me the time-line for processing or what the next steps would be past sending it in. I then asked her how many calls she herself has gotten since passage of the bill. "About one per day," she responded.

That means it is up to us who know Filipino veterans or people who might know veterans to get the word out and put the forms in their hands. The window for this small measure of justice will close very soon. Our communities need to worry less about protesting the lump sum payment and unite to ensure that men like Manong Peping and their families receive the lump sum payment. As Mrs. Dilkes asked me, "What will happen if you keep fighting, and there are not veterans left to fight for?" Many of us will live to fight another day, but for those who may not, we must act now.

(Click on this link to download a copy of the claim form the Filipino veterans need to send out immediately).

Craig Newmark: "An Eye (Many Eyes) on the Stimulus Money"

2009-03-04T02:44:59Z

Hey, Jennifer 8. Lee at the NY Times writes a really good article on crowdsourcing oversight for stimulus money.

Sunlight seems to be the trendy buzzword these days. First there was the Sunlight Foundation, which was established in Washington in 2006 to lobby for better government data. Then Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's office started Project Sunlight to share New York State information online. And last week, City Councilman Bill de Blasio jumped on the solar bandwagon with a proposed legislation to create SunlightNYC, to keep track of stimulus dollars in New York.

The Obama administration has promised transparency in stimulus spending data at Recovery.gov at the federal level (in contrast with the opacity on the TARP bill).

This is a good example of the culture of participation, public/private partnership that we see during the Obama years.

Craig Newmark: ReadTheBill.org: look at legislation before passed

2009-02-28T16:06:22Z

More good government on the way, ReadTheBill.org is about:

ReadTheBill.org is a commonsense solution - we want Congress to post all bills online for 72 hours before they are debated. That gives members of Congress - and you - three days to read legislation and consider how it could potentially affect each of us in our daily lives. A 72 hour rule would also give you a chance to let your senators and representative in Congress know what you like, or don't like, about a bill before they vote.

sign the petition!

Craig Newmark: White House practices transparency: two new developments

2009-02-20T18:49:13Z

Maybe the headlines say it all:

Stimulus Plan Ensures Boom Sector: Oversight

Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

The deal is that people will actually look at how we spend the money, which is the opposite approach from the previous administration.

Also, we're seeing a more honest figure regarding how bad our deficit is, largely hidden before by the prior big-spending administration.

Craig Newmark: recovery.gov off to a good start

2009-02-19T02:31:09Z

Looks like the White House is off to a good start showing where our money is going with recovery.gov.

This is very different that the bailout plan from the previous administration, where billions of dollars haven't been tracked, nor have they from the Iraq war.

recovery.gov is just a start, in part since there are government regulations limiting how much can be revealed, and it'll take a little time to fix that.

However, NextGov.com reports that the White House has already started the effort:

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag issued initial guidance to agencies on Wednesday for administering stimulus funds, providing information and requirements on financial reporting, risk management and contracting.

The 62-page memorandum was sent to agency and department heads, who were directed to distribute the guidance to personnel involved in economic recovery-related activity. Orszag said the policies must take effect immediately to carry out the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The memo focused in particular on requiring agencies to regularly submit spending and performance data to recovery.gov, the online clearinghouse that provides information on how the stimulus funds are spent.

"To deliver a Web site that allows citizens to hold the government accountable for every dollar spent, the law and guidance require federal agencies to implement mechanisms to accurately track, monitor and report on taxpayer funds," Orszag said.