Joe with the Joes

This Thursday from 11AM-1PM, we invite all WashU students to attend "Joe with the Joes" at Whispers Cafe. Joe Edwards, the owner of Blueberry Hill, Pin Up Bowl, and the Pageant, will be there along with Joe Adams, the mayor of University City. Drop by to ask the pair about U. City issues, to ask the mayor about local politics, or to ask Joe Edwards about how to succeed in business. You can also get more information about Mayor Adams from our website.

McCain and Falwell

John McCain is certainly one of the most respectable Republicans in Washington, which makes me wonder why he will be delivering the Commencement message at Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell) in May. Last time I checked, principled moderate leaders do not cozy up to religious fanatics like Falwell, who has stated that "if you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being" and that "most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home." georgia10 has some analysis on DailyKos.

Also, Bush's chief of staff, Andy Card, resigned today. No worries, though. There will be another inept slave to the ideology of tax cuts and social intolerance to take his place, Josh Bolten.

Finally, Kevin Drum has some musings on healthcare:

In the meantime, it occurs to me that there must be some natural experiments that could provide us with some data on this very legitimate question: does centralized control of healthcare spending reduce innovation? In the United States, Medicare funds healthcare for everyone over 65, so if single-payer healthcare really does stifle innovation, we should expect less innovation (and slower adoption of innovative technology) for new procedures and new drugs that are useful predominantly for older patients.

Brooks and Arab Democracy

The people who run for president in 2008 will find themselves campaigning in a weary nation. They will also confront an old form of multiculturalism that has been given a new life. This is the multiculturalism that puts aside the universal claims of the Declaration of Independence, which Lincoln cherished. Instead, it says, democracy is good for many cultures, but not for Arabs. America has benefited from other immigrants, but not the current wave of Mexicans.

So says David Brooks in his most recent NY Times column. And while I certainly agree that second-class citizenship is an undesirable solution to the illegal immigration problem, Brooks' take on "Arab democracy" is, as per usual, completely ridiculous. By omitting other counterarguments, Brooks basically says that opponents of his neoconservative vision of "spreading democracy" oppose giving democracy to Arabs because Arab culture is incompatible with democracy. Never mind that there are numerous other arguments for why spreading democracy to a given country might not be prudent at a certain point in time (lack of viable institutions, probability of a civil war breaking out, increase in terrorism and anti-American sentiments); Brooks dishonestly brushes off arguments against spreading democracy as culturally superiorist and insensitive.

What I don't understand is why Brooks never bothers to differentiate spreading democracy with military force or with other means. It's one thing to say a whole culture is incompatible with democracy, which isn't what most critics of neoconservatism state. What critics of neoconservatism state is that viewing the world in a black-and-white, no-details-necessary manner inevitably lands you in a mess like Iraq. A country whose culture is bitterly divided between 2 conflicting religious factions and 2 conflicting ethnic factions, and a country with underdeveloped institutions, could be argued to be not ready for democracy. Plunging such a nation into war is a bad idea; encouraging the long-term development of societal attitudes and institutions, even if not particularly viable, is surely a better option in such a case. That's not cultural elitism. That's being smart.

More on the State Ban on Funding for Contraception

WustlDemsLAD already posted an AP article on the Missouri ban on state funding for contraception and infertility treatments; here's another article on the topic that's a little more comprehensive from the KC Star.

If any of you are free this coming Tuesday and are interested in lobbying for a reinstatement of state funding for contraception and infertility treatments, the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Planned Parenthood and NARAL will be lobbying and demonstrating in Jefferson City. Their slogan is "responsibility equals prevention" Hundreds of activists will be in attendance. Bus transportation will be provided from St. Louis to Jefferson City (though not from Wash U). Buses will leave Tuesday morning at 7:30 AM and will return by 5:00 PM. For information about bus locations and other details, please call (314) 531-8616.

Had enough?

Apparently Newt Gingrich has gotten himself into the business of giving Dems advice, suggesting to Times magazine that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be no more than, "Had enough?" TPMCafe's Tom Wright has comments on the Gingrich strategy here. MyDD has an excellent post on Feingold and the value of real progressive leadership, while TPMC's Chris Thomas examines HBO's new series Big Love and the economics of polygamy. Also, Kevin Drum wonders about chemical plant security and why Republicans in Congress think mandating it is an unnecessary violation of private enterprise.

But of course, the big issue on everyone's minds right now is immigration reform. I, for one, welcome the Republicans' decision to remind the American public that they are the party of choice of ethnic bigots like Tom Tancredo, who supports the outlawing of helping illegal immigrants in any way, including giving them meals or administering first aid to them. Kevin Drum ponders a guest worker program versus traditional immigration models, while Orcinus provides an extremely comprehensive (though typically long) post on the issue.

Blunt Salutations

Congratulations to Governor Blunt whose approval rating hit a 52-week high of 37%! Everyone give it up for the guv!

Missouri bans contraception in public health clinics

Pre 9/11 worldview? Try pre-1960s worldview: the Missouri House has rejected allowing funding for contraception in public health clinics. Why? Providing contraceptives promotes "promiscuous lifestyles." The law will primarily affect women who are too poor to afford health insurance and who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. And how do we know the bill specifically focuses on women? Examine the rhetoric of the Republic legislators:

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

So basically, the Missouri House thinks that single women are too impressionable to be left alone with the decision of whether or not to use contraceptives. In fact, young women cannot even be in the presence of contraceptives, because they will be lured toward a promiscuous lifestyle. After all, we can't trust adults to make decisions about their own sex lives; that's the State's job!

The deficit

The New York Times is right on the money on the discrepancy between what Republicans are saying and what they are doing about the deficit:

If leading Republicans were serious about the deficit, here's what they'd be saying:
Let the tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2008 and 2010 unless the budget improves significantly before then. Republicans want voters to believe that the deficit is the result of spending increases alone — not tax cuts. That's false. The swing from a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000 to a $371 billion deficit today is a huge deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance, equal to 5.3 percent of the economy. Of that, fully 62 percent is due to lower tax revenues.

I also agree with the Times' assessment that when Republicans actually do offer to curb spending, it is usually through cutting programs that benefit more people than tax cuts do, like healthcare, education, and infrastructure programs. It seems to me that the majority of Republicans truly believe that tax cuts are worth more than a balanced budget and social programs. As the Times editorial states, even the relatively fiscally smart ones are still slaves to this ideology. But make no mistake about it: sooner or later, the deficit must be reduced.

Welcome back

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Spring Break...now get back to work, you lazy bums! Just kidding of course, but I will be getting back to work (read: starting to blog again) within the next day or so.

There will be a Pizza and Politics meeting tomorrow at 9:30PM in the Barry Room, and we hope to see you all there.

Also, on Tuesday, March 21st there will be a fundraiser reception for Missouri state senate candidate (and University College professor) Jeff Smith at The Cedars (939 Lebanon Dr, St. Louis, MO 63104 for you Mapquesters/Google Earthers out there). Student tickets are only $5, and Francis R. Slay Sr. will be there. We encourage any interested students to attend.

And just so everyone's on the same page, that's not an endorsement of Smith's candidacy.

Christian Resolution Put to Rest!

HCR13, the Missouri "Christian resolution," has been put to rest! Though the resolution would have done absolutely nothing in the way of policy, its defeat is a victory of intelligence over ignorance, especially considering that Republicans and Christians form majorities in the Missouri state legislature. Now conservative groups can't religion-bait by using this bill in attack ads or informational campaign literature.

Message from Deacon Larry Weber

TO: Catholic Members of the Missouri House of Representatives

FROM: Deacon Larry Weber, Executive Director and General Counsel

RE: HCR 13 recognizing a "Christian God"

DATE: March 7, 2006


The declaration "I believe in one God" begins our Catholic Professionof Faith. This Profession of Faith forms the basis of the baptismalfaith we hold and profess as followers of Jesus Christ and as membersof the Catholic Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph14, hereinafter Catechism).

As Catholics, we recognize the relationship we have with other peoplewho also profess faith in the same God. We recognize that three ofthe great religious traditions arise in Scripture from Abraham:Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these religious traditionslook to Abraham, to whom God made his covenant and formed his peopleto whom he revealed his law, as their father in faith (Catechism 72). As Catholics, we recognize those of the Jewish faith as our ancestorsin faith, who were the first to hear the word of God (Catechism 839). The Jewish faith is a response to God's revelation in the OldTestament (id.). Likewise, as Catholics, we recognize those of Muslimfaith as followers of "the faith of Abraham, and together with us[those of the Catholic faith], they adore the one, merciful God"(Catechism 841).

The Second Vatican Council, in its declaration Nostra Aetate (October28, 1965), recognized the common belief in the one true God ofChristians and both the Jewish and Muslim peoples, recognizing withrespect to the latter that "The Church regards with esteem also theMoslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who hasspoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even Hisinscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islamtakes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."

The Council also recognized the Jewish peoples' faith in God, stating"Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God'ssaving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are foundalready among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professesthat all who believe in Christ – Abraham's sons according to faith –are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that thesalvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosenpeople's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore,cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testamentthrough the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concludedthe Ancient Covenant."

At his Sunday blessing in St. Peter's Square on October 30, 2005, PopeBenedict XVI reaffirmed the teachings of Nostra Aetate, stating thatthe document was of "great relevance" today because it recognized that"all men constitute one community". "With the Nostra Aetatedeclaration, the fathers of Vatican II proposed some fundamentaltruths: They recalled with clarity the special link that connectsChristians and Jews, they repeated the esteem toward Muslims and thefollowers of other religions, and they confirmed the spirit ofuniversal fraternity that dispensed with all discrimination orreligious persecution," Pope Benedict said.

Unfortunately, the recognition of "a Christian God" found in HCR 13,pending on the House Calendar, is inconsistent with the basic tenet ofour Catholic faith that there is but one true God. As presented tothe floor of the House of Representatives for its consideration, itwould be difficult for a Catholic, in good conscience and inconsideration of the basic tenets of his or her faith, to be able toreconcile this recital contained in HCR 13 and offered as a basis forenactment of this resolution, with the most basic expression of ourCatholic belief in one God as stated by our Catholic Profession ofFaith.

Spring Break

Enjoy your Spring Break, everyone!

Iraq v. Vietnam, South Dakota, and Universal Healthcare

Over at Harvard's Nieman Watchdog retired Gen. William Odom asserts that Iraq is strikingly similar to Vietnam and is damaging our abilities to deal with anti-Western forces.

Universal healthcare should be something that is being honestly and frequently discussed in the American public discourse, especially considering that the current system is crumbling, but shamefully it is not. Luckily, progressive intellectuals are on the case. TPMCafe is a great source of posts on this issue: Leif Wellington Haase provides a broad overview of the many possible roads to universal healthcare coverage, Matt Yglesias wonders whether universal coverage can be combined with a private system, Mark Schmitt considers the electoral impediments to universal healthcare's success, and Nathan Newman blogs about recent healthcare reform in New York State.

And, as many of you may have heard, South Dakota's governor recently signed a bill banning almost all abortions in the state (which has one abortion clinic). Dakota legislators are hoping to force an eventual judicial decision overturning Roe v. Wade. However, Jack M. Balkin wonders if abortion could become a wedge issue for Republicans. I think this argument has some merit. Firstly, many moderate Republicans who do not particularly want to ban abortion or even oppose banning it vote Republican on the assumption that the pro-life movement is one gigantic pipe dream. If the pro-lifers succeed, or even come close to doing so, it could scare these moderates away from the Republican Party. Secondly, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, what would happen to the pro-life movement? All of those single-issue voters are now much less motivated to vote for one party; though they will almost certainly still vote overwhelmingly Republican, a certain portion of the group would almost definitely be shaved off of the voting bloc.

Maybe they'd even start worrying about life after birth and get on the universal healthcare bandwagon.

More posting

For any faithful readers out there (anyone? I think I hear crickets chirping), I'll try and have a nice big fat blog post with lots of links to cool stuff tomorrow, featuring commentary on the South Dakota abortion controversy and universal healthcare. So stay tuned!

Remember, we are students

Recently, our blog-website operation was attacked for allegedly endorsing by implication some candidates who are up for a school board election. Let me set some things straight. We will post campaign opportunities from any Democrat who makes them available to us as soon as is humanly possible. However, some comments are in order. First, College Democrats is not our full time job, or even our first priority; we are students first, so sometimes website updates get put off so that homework and studying can get done. Second, we do not communicate with each other as instantaneously as some might like, and sometimes it can take a day or two for things to move through the pipeline. Last week, our failure to email out all school board campaign opportunities received by us during the weekend was mainly due to slow communication amongst members of our group. We do our best to keep problems like this from occurring, but we are fallible after all. The campaign opportunity that was sent out in the weekly email was received well before the second opportunity was sent to us, and this opportunity was not sent to Akshay Iyengar, who handles the weekly email, or Ben Jackson (read: me), who writes the blog and runs the website. Hence, we were not informed of it until after the contentious email was sent out.

We hope that clears some things up. In the future, though, if anyone has any questions regarding "implicit endorsements," we would prefer if they would simply email us first. After all, good journalists investigate and research their stories before reporting them.

Full Text of House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

Here is the full text of the resolution that would declare that Missouri is a "Christian-majority" state:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

More on the Missouri "Christian" Resolution

The Post-Dispatch has a good, thorough article on the debate over the proposed resolution recognizing Missouri as a "Christian-majority" state. We should note that the item being proposed is a resolution, not a bill. If passed, the resolution would not be law - it is simply an affirmation of what a majority of the state legislature believes; a declaration, if you will.

According to the Post-Dispatch,

The proposed resolution states that the country's forefathers "recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation. ... As elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object."

The resolution also states that "voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state."

Just who's backing this monstrosity?

It was recently approved by the House Rules Committee along party lines - five Republicans backed it, three Democrats did not - and could come for a vote before the full House next week. It would also have to pass in the Senate.

Happily, there is vocal opposition from many religious groups, including several Christian churches:

"It's an atrocity," said the Rev. Timothy L. Carson, senior minister at Webster Groves Christian Church. "Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave. It's indicative of a movement within one segment of activist Christianity that wants to dominate the rest with their views."

The Rev. David M. Greenhaw, president of Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, said he found the resolution "offensive as a Christian. I don't want the state defining my Christianity."

Some non-Christians also reacted strongly. Batya Abramson-Goldstein, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said the fact that the resolution made it out of a committee was significant.

"It's not that this is one individual's opinion," she said. "Other legislators have voted on this already, so it takes on a legitimacy that makes it more than a resolution. It's painful for faith communities outside the Christian community."

The religious bill

I'll have some more extensive comments on the bill later, but I'd just like to let people know that the bill does allow for minorities to "object" to the majority's belief. But as a quick note, since when is it necessary to protect a majority's religious belief (if the government abuses them they just elect it out of office), and why is the bill worded so that the rights of the majority come before that of the minority? A legislature truly concerned about freedom of religion would be much more concerned about protecting the rights of minorities to believe whatever they want to, not just to "object" to the majority's belief. I guess the question becomes, in what way are the religious beliefs of Christians in Missouri threatened, especially when they make up over 90% of the population?

How to Elect the President Through a Popular Vote... WITHOUT Amending the Constitution

Former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh (father of current Indiana Senator and probable '08 presidential candidate Evan Bayh), is leading a new effort to establish a national popular vote for the presidency and vice-presidency.

As a Senator, from 1963 to 1981 (when he was defeated by Dan Quayle), Birch Bayh was one of the Senate's leading liberals and was a principle architect of the 25th Amendment and a major leader in the effort to grant the vote to young persons between the ages of 18 and 21, an effort that eventually led to the 26th Amendment. Bayh was also the Senate's leading advocate of abolishing the Electoral College. Under his efforts, the Electoral College was very nearly abolished in 1969, when a constitutional amendment to institute a popular vote passed the House and had the support of 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Since that time, efforts to institute a national popular vote have been sporadic and unsuccessful. Although several small states supported the 1969 effort, most are generally opposed today, making passage in Congress and ratification in the states a very daunting prospect.

So re-enter Birch Bayh, who is now leading a "bayh-partisan" (hehe!) group of elder statesmen in a bid to institute a national popular vote without abolishing the electoral college which calls itself the National Popular Vote campaign. Under the Constitution, the states are free to allocate their electoral votes however they wish. All but two (Nebraska and Maine) award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis. Nothing stops the states, however, from awarding electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Under this plan, states will individually pass legislation pledging to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The legislation will only go into effect, however, when the states having ratified such legislation control a majority of the electoral college (270+ votes). That way, a majority of the electors in the electoral college will be casting their votes for the winner of the national popular vote.

Bayh yesterday authored a diary on the topic on DailyKos:

Today more than ever, the system we use is a disservice to the voters. With the number of battleground states steadily shrinking, we see candidates and their campaigns focused on fewer and fewer states. While running for the nation's highest office, candidates in 2004 completely ignored three-quarters of the states, including California, Texas and New York, our three most populous states. Why should our national leaders be elected by only reaching out to 1/4 of our states? It seems inherently illogical, and it is.

In recent history, we all remember the 2000 election which awarded the Presidency to the candidate who came in second in the popular vote. That's water under the bridge. But there are few who realize in 2004 President Bush's 3.5 million vote lead over Senator Kerry could have been trumped with a change of less than 60,000 votes in Ohio. With Ohio in the Kerry column the current system and would have elected him President. But our proposal isn't about elections. It's about the future of our democracy.

In the final analysis, to me the most compelling reason for directly electing our president and vice president is one of principle. In the United States every vote must count equally. One person, one vote is more than a clever phrase, it's the cornerstone of justice and equality. We can and must see that our electoral system awards victory to the candidates chosen by the most voters.

The group's

website has a more thorough description and also includes answers to several FAQ's. The effort is also the subject of an article by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker and an favorable editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times.

Of course, the odds against this measure succeeding are pretty long. But it's an interesting effort nevertheless and maybe if some states DO pass the measure, it'll acquire some momentum.

Bill Would Declare Missouri a "Christian State"

How wonderful:

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name
Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the
state legislature...

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other
watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not
protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their
religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only
Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri,
sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over
the phone.

Now, as Joshua Holland notes on Alternet (at the above link), this is far too nutty even to get passed in the Missouri state legislature. But, as Holland notes,

... people who write bills like this aren't trying to make law. Their intent is to further the right's narrative that Christians are a persecuted minority under siege. They want to guarantee that
the good folks at the Anti-defamation league, the ACLU and Americans United fight to have their silly legislation overturned, proving that those civil rights groups have an anti-Christian agenda (and perhaps even a direct association with Satan). And bills like this -- you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more obviously violates the Establishment Clause --are meant to give those
groups a victory in court, thereby proving the existence of out-of-control activist judges dedicated to stymieing the popular will of the Christian majority.

This just goes to show how out-of-the-mainstream the Republicans in Jefferson City are.

Pants on fire

Nobody knew the levees would break? You were caught off guard, Mr. President? Beeee. Essssss. Crooks and Liars has the video of Michael Brown telling Bush that "the big one" is coming and Bush saying that he's "fully prepared." Fully prepared as in not sending relief or pretty much preparing in any significant way. Oh, and they told him levees could be breached.

Conservative intellectual George F. Will has come out and stated that all three components of the "Axis of Evil" are more dangerous today than before the war in Iraq. We'll have further coverage of why George F. Will hates America in the coming days.

And last but not least, the NY Times' Opinionator gives us an excellent overview of Zogby's recent and controversial poll of troops in Iraq.

Regime change

Ever wonder how Bush can reconcile his support for autocratic and repressive Gulf states with his call for freedom in the Middle East? Kevin Drum thinks that you can support both democracy and autocratic regimes in the Middle East, because as he says,

There are no democracies in the Middle East outside Israel, after all. This means that if we want to engage with the Muslim world, instead of simply bombing and invading it, we're going to have to engage with some fairly disagreeable regimes.

Matt Yglesias provides an excellent retort at TPMCafe, stating, among other things,

The United States sells large quantities of advanced military equipment to [the Gulf states] and encourages them to look to us as their main supplier. In the wake of the first Gulf War, we've been offering them implicit defense guarantees. Our intelligence and law enforcement services work hand-in-glove with their domestic security forces. When the President talks about the need for political reform in the Middle East he invariably employs a double-standard, saving all his harsh words for Syria and Iran while offering kind ones for the various Gulf states. All this comes in the context of the fact that the states' boundaries are products of earlier western imperalism and the ruling families almost invariably owe their thrones to the former colonial powers.

Read the rest of the post (it's not very long) for some more interesting commentary.