Union Yes

Stanley Fish: University faculties need to unionize, so instructors have a voice in increasingly corporate universities.

William Cronon:
"McCarthy helped create the modern Democratic Party in Wisconsin by infuriating progressive Republicans, imagining that he could build a national platform by cultivating an image as a sternly uncompromising leader willing to attack anyone who stood in his way. Mr. Walker appears to be provoking some of the same ire from adversaries and from advocates of good government by acting with a similar contempt for those who disagree with him.

"The turmoil in Wisconsin is not only about bargaining rights or the pension payments of public employees. It is about transparency and openness. It is about neighborliness, decency and mutual respect. Joe McCarthy forgot these lessons of good government, and so, I fear, has Mr. Walker. Wisconsin’s citizens have not."

William Cronon is a professor of history, geography and environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

--TomRW

Love and Politics

When Tom and I first got together (in 1990), neither of us was all that politically engaged. We voted and played "catch-up education" before each election in hopes we would make an informed choice on the ballot. But that was pretty much the extent of our political participation. We kept up with current events only sporadically.

Then in 1991 we had the good fortune to move to Madison, Wisconsin. We were amused to find that the result of the first local election we were here for was a huge win for the Democrats, followed not all that distantly by the Labor-Farm Party, and the Republicans came in way behind that. Maybe there's something in the water here....


Tom was the one who started paying closer attention first. He read Paul Krugman and Molly Ivins (Oh, how I miss Molly!) and lots more. He'd buy the New York Times on Sundays, and we'd talk about what he was reading. He'd clip things from the paper for me, read out loud to me, and we'd talk and talk and talk.

Those conversations were like a Great Awakening for me. I was the youngest in my family growing up, and I never felt like anybody was ever interested in my opinion, or even considered that I might have one. But at last, in the cauldron of marriage and Madison and the Internet, my opinions and perspective began to take shape.

Eventually the conversations morphed into my new life online, which eventually expressed itself in this blog. But thus far, to me at least, it has felt like part of the conversation was missing (except for those occasions when Tom added his two cents in the form of a comment). This past weekend, though, I sent Tom an e-mail invitation to come blog with me (romantic, ain't it?), and careful observers will have noticed that he graciously accepted my invitation.

You'll be able to tell which one of us is writing by the by-line at the bottom left-hand corner of the post. (If you're reading the post on Facebook, though, you'll just have to guess, or click on "View Original Post" to see who wrote it.)

For me, this addition represents a welcome continuation of the conversations that began fifteen years or so ago. Those conversations now recommence in a new form: more Worleys, more dervish. Welcome to the blogosphere, honey!

The Power of Big Money (videos)

"If you are concerned about public policy in general in this country, health care, the environment, whatever it may be, we have got to pay attention to the power of big money." --Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT (emphasis added)

Here's what Senator Sanders has to say about the power of big money in Washington:

The answer is

public funding for elections.

Here's what Lawrence Lessig of Change-Congress.org has to say about the need to reform the system and wean our politicians from big money:



—Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, CA

The Public Option Is Dead -- Long Live the Public Option!

If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody's going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care. But the point is I don't want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either.

--Barack Obama

I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.

--Senator Russ Feingold

The headlines proclaim that the public option is dead, and the White House seems to be making noises about its willingness to back down on the need for a public option. At this point, if you believe that the public option is essential for health care reform, your stomach may do a loopdee-loo and then bottom out somewhere near the area of your feet. But it's not time to despair. Really. Trust me on this. The public option is not dead.

The contortions the public option is going through amount to what Howard Dean calls "nothing more than politics." In other words, there's some political strategy at work here. Yesterday on Morning Joe, Dean explained:

The president knows very well that you aren't really going to have health care reform without a public option. But he also knows he has to get this out of the Senate. And he's got a very important member of the finance committee, Kent Conrad [D-North Dakota], who doesn't want to vote for this bill if it's got a public option in it. And he knows he's not going to get any Republican votes of any kind. So at the end of the day, this bill is going to be written by Democrats, it's gotta get out of the Senate, you only need a few Democrats to take out the public option.

The conversation continues the explanation, which, if I understand it correctly, essentially amounts to this:

The Senate needs 60 votes to pass the initial version of its health care reform bill. That version will need to have the blue dogs on board, so it may not include the public option.

Meanwhile, the House will pass its version of health care reform, only its version will retain the public option.

Then in October, the bill will go through the reconciliation process. For that version to pass in the Senate, it will need only 50 votes. The blue dogs can cool their heels out in the hall and it is still likely to pass.

If you haven't done it already, contact your senators and representative and tell them that you vehemently support health care reform that includes the public option.

The public option is not dead. Long live the public option!

I Hate Politics

Really. I hate politics. I think some of my friends think I've found a new hobby. So let me just clear this up. I do not enjoy politics. Yuck. I used to hope that if I just ignored it, it would go away. No such luck. I wasn't altogether oblivious: I knew who my representatives were; whenever there was an election, I tried to educate myself about the issues and candidates—but of course this was always a game of cursory catchup; I occasionally read a newspaper. But I found the whole thing just disheartening and overwhelming.

I still feel that way, only more so. Except. While I was not paying attention, an administration I thought was pretty much okay did some terrible things. The Clinton administration did a lot of the deregulating of financial institutions that is now causing the whole world so much agony. NAFTA made it impossible for farmers in Mexico to compete with U.S. subsidized agriculture. Clinton may have been described as centrist, but he was Republican lite; while he was in office, Reaganomics continued to sow the seeds of our current economic morass. And many of the guys who were responsible for things economic during the Clinton administration are behind the wheel once again. Gee, I wonder why it is that I don't trust them to pull us out of this mess when they were instrumental in getting us into it?

Of course, then things really went south in 2000. Like many others, I was horrified—and still am—that Bush could have made his way into office with a single vote—from the Supreme Court. That one vote led to torture, secrecy, the dissolution of our civil rights and liberties, fear mongering, war mongering, and much more. Depressing as hell, and the more we find out about what actually went on in this unprecedentedly secretive administration, the more horrifying it is.

I hate it. It regularly makes my stomach turn. But I believe that the best way for us to care for ourselves and our families is to care for our communities: our neighborhoods, our cities, our states, our country, and our world. I believe in nonviolence, because violence never accomplished anything good. Ever. The same is true of war. And greed. I long for a better world. This one is making me ill.

If you've read the book or seen the movie of The Secret Life of Bees, you'll know what I mean when I say that I need a wailing wall like the one May built in the back of the pink house. And there are days when I need to go there and just wail.

But there's nothing else for it but to pay attention and get involved to the best of my meager ability. Alas, it was the "philosophical founder of modern conservatism," Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." In this one respect, anyway, I agree with him. A lot of good people must have been doing a lot of nothing for some time now.

I have no idea how to make headway against all the evil evident around me, but I'm not going to retreat into my comfortable hidey-hole however much I might like to. I find it all quite overwhelming and exceedingly difficult, but my silence will only allow the great evil to persist and grow all the stronger, and my voice might just be a candle that expels at least some of the darkness.

The Auto Bailout and a Tale of Three Cars

Here are some strings I would like to attach to the auto bailout. Instead of insisting that GM and Chrysler dramatically reduce their debt and lower workers’ salaries, let’s insist that they make cars people actually want. No amount of bailout money is going to help until they figure this one out. Come on, people, it can’t be that hard.

Focusing on the UAW and workers' wages lets Detroit off for its failure to manufacture better, more appealing cars. Moreover, lowering compensation so that it would be more comparable to that of employees of the foreign-owned manufacturers would reduce the cost of a car by approximately $800 according to the New York Times. "An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, but the Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say. Even so, many Americans no longer want to own the cars being made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler" (emphasis mine).

My own experience as a car owner is a case in point. My first car was a used Dodge Omni I named Captain Quirk because it had more than its share of peculiarities. I can't remember exactly what it was I needed to do every so often under the hood to get the thing to go, but I actually acquired a small amount of car-specific mechanical prowess out of necessity. Everything started to go wrong when the odometer reached about 80,000 miles. All at once Captain Quirk became altogether unreliable.

My next car was a used Dodge Colt. I can’t even remember its name, if it even had one. It also began falling apart at about 80,000 miles. When I finally traded it in, the salesman actually laughed when he saw it. It wouldn't start in the rain -- something about a cracked distributor cap, I think. It was essentially useless. The car dealer was doing me a favor to take it off my hands.

I traded the Colt in for a brand-new 1992 Toyota Camry, which I named Claire, after a friend who had a very old Volvo that was like a member of her family. I knew right away that Claire was a car I would drive for many years and many miles. Just like my friend’s Volvo, Claire became a member of the family. When Tom and I got married, his family dressed her up as a Holstein cow (Wisconsin humor), complete with an inflated rubber glove as the udder.

I’m still driving Claire to this day. She has more than 180,000 miles on her, and the only major repair she has ever needed was to have the radiator replaced. She looks fine, she's comfortable, and she drives beautifully. She has reasonably good gas mileage. I plan to drive Claire until she falls apart beneath me. I’m hoping for another hundred thousand miles or so.

Apparently many Americans have had car-owning experiences not dissimilar to mine. Cars made by the Big Three have been a pain in the arse. Cars made by Japanese-owned companies in particular have been a pleasure to drive, whether or not we are goofy enough to consider them a member of the family.

So, Big Three, your mission is to utterly transform yourselves, inside and out and from every angle. First, build some really great cars that are safe, affordable, comfortable, fuel-efficient, user-friendly, and have plenty of eye appeal. Excise the planned obsolescence. All it ever accomplished was to teach us that you make crappy cars.

Then, hire yourselves some crack marketing wizards. Retire the names Chrysler, GM, and Ford. Just get rid of them. They’re history. All the lemons we have bought from you have left a very sour taste in our mouths that we won’t soon forget. Rebrand yourselves altogether. Come up with zippy new Japanese names, not only for the models but for the companies themselves. We’ve come to associate Japanese names with quality cars. Go with that; exploit it. There’s no trademark on the Japanese language or on Japanese names.

Finally, consider moving your base of operations to another city. Sorry, Detroit. These companies have messed up so badly that the name of the city where their products were manufactured has become synonymous with lemon.

Ultimately, if you Big Three don’t figure out how to make cars Americans want to buy, then all the bailouts in the world aren’t going to keep you from going under.

Today's Torturous Reading

I was distressed earlier this week that so few seemed to be taking note of Cheney's blithe admission in the ABC interview that aired on Monday (Dec. 15) to having authorized torture. Things are looking decidedly less distressing today, in the sense that more people are taking notice. Of course, the news itself could not be more distressing.

If you read nothing else, be sure to read Glenn Greenwald's post: Demands for War Crimes Prosecutions Are Now Growing in the Mainstream

And if you go on to read only one more thing, the New York Times weighed in today on its editorial page: The Torture Report

At Think Progress: Cheney Defends Torture: It "Would Have Been Unethical or Immoral" for Us Not to Torture

At the Huffington Post, David Latt: Cheney Taunts Bush, Pardon Me or Else

At Harper's, Scott Horton: The Torture PresidencyBlogger: The Worley Dervish - Edit Post "Today's Reading"

And finally, I believe every American should read the report released last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Levin, McCain Release Executive Summary and Conclusions of Report on Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody

Update: On her program tonight Rachel Maddow interviewed David Rose, author of Tortured Reasoning. Rose points out that not only is torture morally repugnant; it just doesn't work. The intel gained from it is generally useless.

Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration

Members of Change.org are voting for the causes they most want the Obama administration to pay address. I believe that holding the Bush administration accountable for its crimes is of paramount importance to our democracy (see my previous posting on Facebook).

Please go to Change.org and log in (or register if you haven't already).

Then go to this idea for change: Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration and vote for that idea.

Then e-mail it to your friends, post it on Facebook, Digg it, and promote it in any way you can.

There is no political will for this in Washington, and Obama won't do it unless we push him. This looks like another good way to push for the change we need.

Update: You can just click the widget to the right. Easy shmeezy!

"U.S. Vice President Admits to War Crime"

In yesterday's Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan declares "U.S. Vice President Admits to War Crime." Well at least somebody understands the implications of Dick Cheney's recent interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

Is it just me, or should Cheney blithely, casually admitting to authorizing torture interrogation tactics at least register in the media? Why this isn't being splashed all over every front page in the nation (and around the world) is completely beyond me. If this isn't big news, what is? And yet, it doesn't even seem to be treated as news at all. If it weren't for Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan (anyone else? if so, please let me know), the ABC interview would have escaped my attention entirely.

In his interview with Karl, Cheney says, "I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about."

Huh? Am I the only one who is confused here? I thought it was well and widely understood that waterboarding is indeed torture. And, as Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last night, the United States has prosecuted individuals who performed waterboarding as war criminals. Apparently Cheney feels free to define terms in whatever way suits him. Never mind that the rest of the world believes that waterboarding is torture and that torture is, well, bad.

In answer to Karl's very next question -- "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?" -- Cheney says, without missing a beat, without an iota of hesitation: "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared. . . . It's been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves."

Excuse me? the results? Let's think: It is widely acknowledged that torture does not produce good intelligence. What it does do is engender hostility toward the United States, which does not have the effect of making us any safer. Just the opposite. Moreover, the international profile of the United States has been defiled by this reprehensible practice.

Does anyone else think Cheney seems a bit, oh, say, sociopathic? According to Wikipedia, a person with an antisocial personality disorder, otherwise known as a sociopath, shows "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others."

Karl goes on to ask Cheney, "In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?" Cheney's cheery, unflapped reply: "I don't."

Karl: "And on KSM, one of those tactics of course widely reported was waterboarding . . . even that, do you think was appropriate?" And again Cheney replies with his head held high: "I do."

Cheney's demeanor is every bit as alarming as his admissions. He's not hedging at all. He's proud, he's defiant, he's enjoying himself! You can tell he thinks this waterboarding is great stuff. Very successful tactic. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

This is a dark stain on our history that must be addressed legally and morally. We can't just go skipping along because, hey, we have some new guys coming in and we promise they won't do this nasty stuff. Oh yeah, we were just reeling from 9/11. We've come to our senses now. We promise we won't do it again. Does anyone really think that's an acceptable response?

Crimes of this magnitude must be addressed by the nation: in public, in a court of law. Otherwise we are all complicit in this monstrosity. It is a disgrace in which we all share. This is utterly, altogether, and in every way unacceptable. People of good conscience should not allow this to go unchecked, not to mention unnoted.

No more of this! We have to stand up against torture or it will eat away at our identity as a nation. As it is, this country is altogether unrecognizable to me. And I do not tolerate this horror without loud and repeated protest. Enough! Not on my watch! Not in my country!

Update: Glenn Greenwald is also duly outraged. Glenn rocks!

Update 2: The Guardian gets it!

Update 3: And check out this great post on the Lost Albatross: Disproportionate Force

So Much for Post-Partisanship?

I don't understand why the auto bailout is unpopular with the public. It seems evident that the ramifications of allowing the U.S. auto industry to tank will be felt deeply and painfully in every nook and cranny of this nation -- and around the world -- and would be a decision deeply regretted for a long time to come.

Of course, this bailout should be handled better than the Wall Street one. Let's start with a little accountability. Please? But with good oversight, the revitalization of the U.S. auto industry could have all kinds of far-reaching positive effects: greener vehicles, the end of planned obsolescence, better fuel economy.

I'm appalled that the Senate Republicans are so crass as to be willing to let the entire world economy tank for the sake of taking a political shot at organized labor. They are unconscionable bullies. I hope they have miscalculated on a grand scale and that their enormous hubris winds around and bites them in the butt big time.
About Auto Bailout
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

MoveOn: Restore the Rule of Law

I wrote a few days ago in my Facebook notes about the importance of holding the Bush administration accountable for the various ways it broke the law. There is nothing more important facing our country in this moment; all our other crises pale in comparison--yes, even the rapidly downward-spiraling economy. Because a thriving economy can't offset the horror of living in a dictatorship.

Besides vigilantly upholding and safeguarding the rule of law, we have no other means of protecting ourselves from tyranny, and tyranny is more imminent than many may imagine. (For a truly terrifying account of just how imminent, check out The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf.)

I think Obama is unlikely to break the law or disregard the Constitution in any of the ways Bush has done. I believe Obama values the rule of law and intends to uphold and defend the Constitution. But I get the feeling there is very little political will on the part of Obama or the Democrats in Congress to investigate and prosecute the crimes committed by the Bush administration. And I believe that it's critically important that we do so.

Sooo.... that means it's up to us, the general rabble, to effect a groundswell demand that the Bush administration be held accountable. In thinking about how we could possibly do this, my first thought was to write letters: to our representatives, to President-Elect Obama, to newspapers. Still, it's a very tall order to create a noisy enough clamor to get Congress and the new president to act on something so difficult when we're in the middle of so many other national crises (Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, etc. etc.). All well and good. Letters do help, and I will be writing mine and posting them here.

But this morning I got an e-mail from MoveOn.org asking about what is the most important goal MoveOn should focus on right now. When I saw that timely query, I thought "hmmm... how to create a groundswell..." No matter what you think about MoveOn, you have to admit the organization has a lot of members and a fair amount of political clout.

There are lots and lots of important issues that MoveOn could focus on, but many of them will get plenty of attention with or without MoveOn's support: health care, the economy, closing Gitmo, ending the occupation of Iraq. But holding the Bush administration accountable won't happen if we leave Obama and the Dems to their own devices. So that's why I think MoveOn should focus on that, because without the clamor of the rabble (i.e., us), it just isn't going to happen.

So I'm asking you to go to MoveOn and add your voice to mine about the importance of focusing on restoring the rule of law. Here's the link: http://pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/submit.html?id=15255-2716881-l6stWtx&t=3. Here's what I'd like you to enter:

1. MoveOn's top goal in 2009? (10 words max)

Restoring the Rule of Law; prosecuting Bush administration crimes

2. Category

Accountability for Bush

3. You can add your own explanation for why you think MoveOn should focus on the issue you chose. I quoted myself, and you can feel free to quote me too if you like:

If we don't hold the the Bush administration accountable, there's absolutely nothing that will prevent future leaders from believing that they also are above the law. It's an invitation to tyranny. If we're really against torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, the undoing of habeas corpus, the establishment of the "unitary executive" (read: king), then we must act. If we don't, it will be clear to the world, to our children, and to our future leaders that we really don't have the courage of our convictions when it comes to the rule of law, we really don't care if they chew up our rights and civil liberties and spit them out. We absolutely cannot afford to let this slide. Nothing less than the future of freedom is at stake.

If you do add your vote to mine on MoveOn's site, would you please post a comment here letting us know that you did? Thanks! Let's get this groundswell going!

Should We Hold the Bushies Accountable?

Should we hold the Bush administration accountable? Or should we just let them slink away quietly while we get on with the business of trying to put right all that has been made wrong? Can we just reestablish the rule of law without going through all the unpleasantness of investigations and trials? Should we stir up controversy and unleash the anguish of political rancor and partisan conflict? Aren't the American people fed up with being so divided? Is it enough just to learn all the abuses that went on, or do we need to actually press charges and bring the perpetrators to trial? Can't we just go on as if the nightmare of the last eight years never happened?

Glenn Greenwald on the Bill Moyers Journal had this to say: "What happens if you allow serious law breaking to go unpunished is you're telling political leaders, current and future, that there's no need for you to abide by the law. There's no reason for you to consider yourself constrained or limited in what you do. Because even if you commit crimes while in office, we're going to be too afraid of creating divisiveness... And the damage that comes from that is infinitely worse than whatever this divisiveness is that so many people are afraid of when citing why we should let these criminals go free."

Continue reading the Moyers transcript: Part of the difficulty is that the Democrats, who are now and soon to be in power, are reluctant to hold this administration accountable because many of their leaders have been complicit in the crimes that have been committed. Congress has ceded much of its power to the "unitary executive," willingly, almost joyfully. There are few national politicians who are blameless in the great debacle that has overtaken our government.

However, in spite of the lack of political will on the part of the Democrats, we cannot possibly undo the damage that has been done without holding the Bush administration accountable for its actions. The damage that would be done by not holding them accountable would be much worse than whatever controversy is stirred up by establishing an independent investigation and prosecuting those who believed they were above the law and acted on that belief.

This nation needs better politicians, leaders who cannot be so easily bought and sold and silenced. We are never going to get them without doggedly pursuing justice, however uncomfortable the pursuit may make some of us, especially those of us whose reelections are on the line. But it's not up to them. It must not be up to them. It's up to us, the American people, to insist that our leaders be held accountable. And now is the time when we must make our voices heard or be condemned by our own silence.

Why on earth is it OK to hold Bill Clinton accountable for lying under oath, lying about something that's altogether inconsequential to the American people, but we should not pursue accountability for what is perhaps the most unlawful administration in American history? How can this possibly make any sense? Has our government just become a stage for the theater of the absurd? Are our rights and liberties really so insignificant to us that we can just let this go because it's not politically expedient for our elected officials?

It's entirely possible to appoint an independent, nonpartisan investigator to bring to light the crimes that have been committed. That's not to say that there won't be those who would try to politicize the process anyway. But the actions of the investigation can and should be above politics and above reproach.

If we don't hold the Bush administration accountable, there's absolutely nothing that will prevent future leaders from believing that they also are above the law. It's an invitation to tyranny.

If we're really against torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, the undoing of habeas corpus, the establishment of the "unitary executive" (read: king), then we must act. If we don't, it will be clear to the world, to our children, and to our future leaders that we really don't have the courage of our convictions when it comes to the rule of law, we really don't care if they chew up our rights and civil liberties and spit them out.

We absolutely cannot afford to let this slide. Nothing less than the future of freedom is at stake.

"Herbert Hoover Time"

Robert Borosage hits the nail on the head today in the HuffPost.

The UAW is being unfairly blamed for Detroit's financial difficulties. Undoubtedly, the auto industry is suffering on account of multitudinous stupidities: mismanagement, lack of vision, skyrocketing health-care costs. Not to mention the economic downturn. I heard on the radio the other day that auto sales went from $17 million to $10 million in one year. Ouch. What industry would that not hurl into crisis?

But it is absolutely fatuous for Republican senators, among them McConnell and Corker, to blame the workers. And even worse to flush the whole damn economy -- that is, the WORLD economy -- down the toilet in order to wage class warfare.

This is absolutely one of the worst outrages coming out of the U.S. Senate in an age of outrages. Corker should be impeached on the spot. This behavior is nothing short of traitorous; it betrays the trust of the American people. If the American auto industry goes under, don't think for a minute that the effects won't be felt by Corker's constituents. Along with the rest of the world.

Please, show your support for the UAW. Making them the scapegoat for Detroit's economic woes is nothing short of atrocious. The suffering this class warfare will unleash will be felt far and wide for a long time.

It's shocking that the next best hope is that Bush appears to be considering bailing out Detroit from the original $700 billion bailout package. That would be good sense, amazingly good sense, considering the source.

I hope this atrocity rears up and bites McConnell and Corker and their pals in the butt.
*raising my fist in defiance and solidarity -- forever*

The State of Our Expectations

I have read that Obama's transition team is concerned about the public's elevated expectations for the new administration. I would like to assuage their fears.

(1) W did nothing if not lower the bar. If Barack can promise he will wake up every morning and engage, we'll be happy. If he can promise that he won't magically morph into W, we'll be overjoyed. If he has goals other than to line the pockets of his cronies and grind the country into the muck, we'll be over the moon.

(2) We know there's a lot of work to do and it's a complicated morass Barack is inheriting. We're all just amazed that he wants the job, and we promise to help however we can. "A new spirit of service and sacrifice" he asked for this week. Yes sir, coming right up.

(3) We've been going in the wrong direction for so long -- seems like much longer than eight years -- we know it will take a massive effort from all of us to turn ourselves around. Just going in the right direction, albeit slowly and deliberately, will be an enormous relief.

(4) W and his pals treated the people of this country with thinly veiled contempt. It took us a while, but finally most of us are returning the sentiment. Barack, continue to respect us, as you did throughout your campaign, and we will continue to respect you.

Don't worry. We know you're not the messiah. You're just the right guy at the right place at the right time, and we're the ones who've got your back -- because you've got ours. *fist bump*

The Revolution Has Arrived -- And We Are It!

The New York Times: How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks' Power

I love finding myself in the midst of this revolution. We are only just beginning to scrape the surface of the power of online communities. I could feel it among my friends on Facebook. One day I just started friending everybody I encountered in various Facebook groups who had a pro-Obama profile picture or who had Hussein as their middle name. I figured, "What have I got to lose?" I was amazed at how often my friend request was accepted. Then we started sharing articles, columns, notes, blogs. It was amazing to have all this help finding important information.

"Special-interest groups and lobbyists will now contend with an environment of transparency and a president who owes them nothing." Whoa, how awesome is that?!? Has there ever been a president who wasn't beholden to special-interest groups and lobbyists? At last, WE THE PEOPLE are the special-interest groups and lobbyists. It's good news for democracy in the United States!

"While many people think that President-elect Obama is a gift to the Democratic Party, he could actually hasten its demise. Political parties supply brand, ground troops, money and relationships, all things that Mr. Obama already owns." This is even better news than the disempowering of special-interest groups and lobbyists. I long to see the end of the artificial left-right dichotomy. It's time for us to grow up and develop a truly representative government that respects and listens to its constituents.

The notion that just because the Republicans have spent the last eight years running the country into the ground, then the Democrats are the ones to save us is utterly ludicrous. The Dems are surely just as capable of running the country into the ground as the Republicans are. It's time for representatives to actually represent us. It's time for our government to be by the people and for the people -- no more sticking it to the people. And its time for the people to have the power to hold the government accountable and to have their voices heard above the constant whine and spin of parties, special-interest groups, and lobbyists.

Rock the revolution!

If I Could Hug Each and Every One of You Right Now,

I would. I have never in my life cried tears of joy over the results of an election. This is just amazing. I love all of you! Even those of you who voted for McCain! There's more to come, but at this moment I am convinced -- we did it! Thank you so much to all of you who worked so hard on this election, for all of you who voted, for all of you who haven't given up on the USA. If I had fireworks, I'd light them. If I had champagne, I'd pop the cork. God bless America indeed! And God bless each and every one of you!

This Is Our Moment

"A New Progressive Era," by Robert L. Borosage

According to Mr. Borosage, "If Obama is elected, he will have the moment, mandate, momentum, and moral armament to launch a new era of bold progressive reform." It is not only Obama who will have the moment and momentum and moral armament.

Much more important, we the people will have the moment and the momentum and the moral armament. We can't just sit back on Nov. 5 and expect Obama and the new administration do all the work.

The work that needs to be done to recover from the devastation wrought by the neocons is much too much for just one guy, even if he does work in the oval office. We can't just put our trust in Obama. He's got some good stuff goin' on, but he's not the messiah. He's just a guy. A good guy. But to restore the Constitution, the balance of power, our civil liberties, a just and fair immigration system, a tortured economy, our standing in the world -- just to name a few -- we need to continue to be as engaged after the election as we are now.

We must continue to push for change and raise our voices about what really matters and what will transform us into a much better Republic than we have been for the last eight years, the last eighty years. We need to use the momentum we've built up, both online and on the streets, through writing letters to our representatives and to local and national newspapers, through blogging and online communication and education, through our involvement on whatever level best suits us: community-wide, nationwide, worldwide.

One of the most important things we can do is to pay attention and to respond to what we see. Ask questions. Question authority. Drag what's hiding in the shadows out into the open. That's what our cybercommunity is really good for. Let's get rid of the electoral college before the next presidential election and make it so that votes count all across the country and not just in battleground states. Let's close Guantanamo and end torture. Let's work together to discover sources of fuel that are less costly (in every respect).

We have a lot of work to do, people. We really are the ones we have been waiting for, and this is our moment.

Trickle UP

Why is it that you never hear about trickle-UP economics? It seems to me that this is much more common (and obvious) than the other sort, the feudal fantasy of trickle-down economics. Without the people willing to work minimum wage in this country, would anybody have any money at all?

This line of thought started this morning when I read this editorial in the New York Times: The City Life: Regulating the 99-Cent Store.

I've never taken an economics course, and much of the time economics makes as much sense to me as voodoo. Thank God for Paul Krugman. Thanks to his insightful and well-written column, comprehensible to the economically uninitiated, I have at least begun to think about economics with something less akin to revulsion. But I have a lot of questions; there is much that puzzles me.

Disclaimer: I have a knee-jerk inclination to identify with lost causes, underdogs, the marginalized, and the disenfranchised. These are the corners of the world I find the most interesting, the most appealing, the most compelling, and no offense to my rich friends (all two of you, I think), but I find more to respect in those corners as well.

Since I began hanging around with my friends from the Hispanic/Latino congregation at my church, I have come to know people who have the fiercest work ethic I have ever encountered. (Gross generalization alert!) They'll work for anyone who will give them a job, they'll work whatever hours, under whatever conditions. And across the board, they do it for one reason: for their families. They just want to be able to keep their kids alive, to buy them milk and tortillas and beans. And even so, they will give you the shirt off their back if you ask for it.

The way I see it, this is the kind of work ethic that made this country strong, economically, morally, spiritually, collectively. But these are the folks that some want to bar from entrance, even though many who employ them need their services desperately (in spite of their unwillingness to pay them a just wage or provide them with health care). I suppose that with the economy in the tank, there will be more and more Americans willing to take jobs that until now only the economically desperate have been willing to take.

Some of my friends may now find that they have no recourse but to return to their home countries. That would be bad for us, because these folks are good for America. They have the fiercest of family values (the real kind, not just trotted out when it's politically expedient). They are kind, generous, inclusive, and committed to their community. We need more people like this. We shouldn't be shunning them and driving them away.

Anyway, to return to my question, what about trickle-UP economics? I've never seen a business that could function without its low-wage grunt employees. And the businesses that recognize the value of their workers -- janitors, clerks, and engineers alike -- are generally the ones that flourish, aren't they? Don't people just naturally want to do business where people are happy, growing, and invested in the well-being of the company they work for? But even the businesses that don't treat their employees well, could they survive without their janitors and clerks?

So, Mr. Krugman, can you please explain to me why no one ever talks about the theory of trickle-UP economics?