Christmas Eve Cheer!

Being a Jew is difficult right now. The office is pretty slow, but us Jews are here carrying the banner. That got me thinking, I should write a blog post about nothing. AND EVERYTHING

I'll start by saying that the blog might shut down for a few days. It'll be back up after New Years with a new name, a new focus, and probably a new look. I know that the swarms (thousands of people: White, Black, Muslim, Jew, Dog, Cat) will be awaiting its renewal. Just sit tight, don't freak out, and chillax.

Question of the day: "Mom, if Santa and Judah the Maccabee got in a fight, who would win?" Lisabu, please answer quickly.

The article linked above is odd. If the author wasn't named Lithwick, I might be offended. It includes gems like "the Grinch is a fundamentally Jewish show because the Grinch himself is a fundamentally Jewish character. I got one e-mail that concluded, 'Who is more of a Grinch than a grumpy old Jew?' And a Jew with a heart problem no less?" Also, apparently the Grinch "is the ultimate fantasy for a Jewish kid" with "Santa/tree/carols envy" because "Christmas, canceled."

It sounds to me like the author has Christian envy. Jeffrey Goldberg has this right. Most Jews don't care about Christmas. In fact, its just a day in the year (hence my being in the office on this slow day). (And this negates the fact that Hannukah is not an important holiday at all, inflated only so that Jewish kids can compare with their Christian counterparts.)

BUT THATS BESIDES THE POINT! I don't feel the need to define my December 25 in opposition to Christmas. In fact, i think that Christmas is an incredible holiday that often brings out the best in people. In that sense, its nice that secular Christmas is a default holiday for most Americans.

But all those thoughts aside, this is the oddest part of that Slate article linked above:

Jewish women who as children were whisked away to Jewish vacation resorts in Florida marry Jewish men who hung Hanukkah stockings next to a Hanukkah bush, alongside the plate of gefilte fish they'd left out for Santa.

...Ok. Tuki has a serious complaint. This post is too cohesive, not random enough. Wanna see some cute pictures of her? I don't care if you do or if you don't! I get to do whatever I want!


Hey guess what! I get to see these people tomorrow!

And this one soon!

Want to see a funny site? Its called Fuck you Penguin. It "tells cute animals whats what." Check it out.

Well thats enough for now. Peace out. Holiday cheer. Bring it on.

Dollmania

I don't have much to say about this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic, except that I LOLed out loud when I saw it.

Please, in case you were considering it, don't get me a doll for the Holidays. Unless, of course, its this one:


And don't get me the white version:

From Sarah: "Put that on your blog and smoke it"

Obama Will Set VP's Role, Biden is not Cheney

Josh Marshall of TPM wrote today that the Joe Biden model of the Vice Presidency could be closer to the Dick Cheney model than we might hope. It’s an interesting argument based largely on the fact that Joe Biden is old enough that he would likely not run for President in 2016 (he would be 74) and therefore does not have to weigh the politics of extensive VP involvement, just as Cheney did not.

Vice President Cheney's clout within the Bush administration is heavily tied to the fact that the he early -- and quite credibly because of his medical history -- disavowed any plans to seek the presidency in his own right. We're in the midst of a four decade trend toward more and more powerful and influential vice-presidents (in the sense of clout not constitutional prerogative). But the big brake on the veep's role in decision-making has always been the fact that everyone else who wants to be president someday has a strong interest in keeping his power in check.

But I think that Biden will only have as much power as President-elect Obama allows. The Obama machine has been incredibly well oiled since it began more than two years ago and I don't think this will change after Obama is inaugurated. From what I can tell, Cheney was so involved in the Bush presidency because Bush wanted and needed that. He simply did not have the knowledge and political ability to do it by himself.

But despite his inexperience, Obama is a competent leader and skilled politician. I don’t see Biden making a play for extensive powers without Obama squashing it. But if Obama wants an involved VP, then it will happen.

There are a few areas in which Obama could use the Vice President’s help. First, there is foreign policy, Biden’s strong suit. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the choice of Biden as VP was a clear sign that Obama would look to his running mate for support on issues of national security and international diplomacy. But some early Obama cabinet picks shows that he would also look elsewhere for help. This was especially apparent in his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, another high profile foreign relations authority.

It’s still early to predict what Biden’s role will be in the White House. But I predict that Obama will set the tone for that role and Biden, whether he wants to or not, will have to obey.

NYTimes on VPs

Always a (Jewish) Bridesmaid...

Matt Yglesias:

It seems Barack Obama is giving us a cabinet with no Jewish members. Plenty of Jews in non-cabinet top spots (Axelrod, Summers, Orszag) so I guess we’ll have to just run things from behind the scenes. I think that was also the case at the beginning of the Dubya administration, though now we have Chertoff. One related issue is whether the country will ever again see a non-Jewish Fed Chair.

UPDATE: And of course you can add Rahm to the list of influential, but not in the cabinet, Jews. Basically, it’s a chock full ‘o Jews White House staff and a non-Jewish cabinet.

Elections in Ghana Promise Change and Inspire Hope

Before Ghana’s December 7 election, there was much discussion about the importance of a peaceful electoral process for the West African coastal country and the entire African continent.

The first round of the election went off without a hitch. In fact, 70% of eligible voters turned out to cast a vote for one of the six Presidential contenders. But when all the votes were tallied, Nana Akufo-Addo of the National Progress Party (NPP) received 49.3% of the vote, and John Atta Mills of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) took 47.8% of the vote. Since more than 50% is required to win the Presidency, these candidates will face off in the December 28 runoff election.

One reaction to the close election stands out. Bridget, a 39 year-old General Manager from Accra said,

I am feeling relaxed because over the weekend there were no incidents, there was nothing to make me worry and there were also a lot of checks and balances in place to ensure everything went well.

The threat of violence was a legitimate concern in Ghana, even as Africa’s first Independent Democracy. In the past year, the world was shocked by electoral violence in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria. Ghana’s peaceful election ensures that it will remain a political leader for the continent that many Americans still view as a catastrophe zone.

For the past eight years, John Kufuor, the leader of the NPP, ruled as Ghana’s first democratically elected President since 1979. In that year, Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings seized power from the corrupt government and peacefully handed power to Dr. Hilla Limann. But in 1981, Rawlings rose again to overthrow Limann and consolidate his power as Ghana’s Head of State. In 1993, Rawlings changed his title to President and was re-elected twice in semi-democratic elections.

Kufuor beat Rawlings in the 2000 election and has served two terms, the maximum allowed by Ghana’s Constitution. Kufuor has vowed to peacefully hand over the Presidency to Akufo-Addo or Mills, whoever wins the runoff. This indicates Ghana's incredible transformation and status as a Democratic power in Africa.

After Ghana’s Independence in 1957, decolonization spread quickly throughout the continent. Between 1957 and 1965, almost thirty African countries declared independence from a colonial power. If the December 28 runoff is as successful as the first round, then Ghana could inspire another wave of reform through legitimate and peaceful elections.

Is Warren Worth It?

I wrote a few weeks ago about the media’s overblown response to Obama’s centrist cabinet appointments. The media seemed to think that liberals were furious at Obama, when they were maybe peeved or disappointed. Many liberals understand Obama’s need to appoint people with experience who appeal to a wide cross section of the population in order to maximize his political capital.

But Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20 is a symbolic blow to women, gays and the pro-choice and pro-gay liberals who support them.

It’s clear Warren was chosen in an attempt to bring Christians (and even conservatives) into Obama-mania. And despite the unfortunate message that the choice sends to liberals, I think it is politically shrewd. But the central question is, will Barack Obama gain enough with Christians and conservatives to compensate for the support he will lose from the left?

Powerful liberal organizations like the Human Rights Campaign are decrying this decision as “genuine blow to LGBT Americans.” Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.

Despite the political benefits to Warren giving the invocation, I agree that it is a bad choice that sets the stage for some serious disappointments from Obama on abortion and gay rights. But I’m hoping that that disappointment is only symbolic and restricted to inauguration.

Because when it comes down to it, the Warren choice means nothing. After all, Obama is not the sole decider of who gives the invocation. And it would be much more serious if he had appointed him Secretary of State or Attorney General or as the next Justice to the Supreme Court. But that’s ridiculous and its clearly not going to happen. I trust that Obama’s pandering to Christian conservatives will not spill over into any policy decisions.

In a later Andrew Sullivan post:

I think the choice of Warren is almost certainly designed, in fact, as a unifying move - and it is a signal that Obama has every intention of reaching out to Christianists who have some liberal leanings on poverty, the environment, and heterosexual HIV and AIDS. (Check out the last time Rick Warren reached out to gay people with HIV or AIDS.) I understand where Obama's coming from, and I don't think this is an inherently bad idea. Building such a liberal Christianist coalition is something I saw coming, and sadly see no way to avoid.

Before we will see what the choice of Warren means for the big picture of Obama’s Presidency, Obama will lose some credibility from his base. Long term, I hope that he’ll surround himself with more liberals and make some serious progressive policy choices. But when it comes down to it, we knew all along that we were electing a moderate.

UPDATE - OBAMA ON WARREN

Time Person of the Year

The GOP Doomed Detroit. And We Wont Forget

I’m still shocked that the bill granting $15 Billion to bail out Detroit’s Big Three did not pass. And I’m still worried that the failure to protect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of American is an incredible mistake that will make this economic downturn even worse. But I must admit that I understand the opposition’s argument on this issue. Still, that doesn’t mean they’re right.

There is an important truth to the fact that bankruptcy could make the Big Three reevaluate their priorities and resurrect their position in the auto world and eventually re-hire hundreds of thousands of Americans. In the long term, bankruptcy could be just what the doctor ordered to improve the failing automobile industry and get our economy on track.

Also, Newsweek has a very interesting article about the foreign-owned automobile industry picking up steam in the South. These “little eight” companies employ many Southern workers with good wages and benefits. This is likely the reason that Southern Republican Senators voted against saving Detroit’s automobile industry. In a capitalist society, competition is king, and we must let bad companies fail to secure the best product. This will ensure that the economy remains healthy in the long term.

But American families do not think long term. They think about the jobs just lost because the executives of these companies actually thought Americans would continue to buy gas guzzling American hybrids instead of gas-efficient, foreign-made hybrids. They think about how to get a new job in this economy, when most companies are laying people off in crisis and to avoid crisis.

So I’ve got to agree with Bob Shrum. Even if the Republicans had some legitimate reasons to oppose the bailout, those reasons will not be remembered. Instead, we will remember that 20 Senators agreed to give $700 Billion to Wall Street, but refused to give $15 Billion (2% of $700B) to support American workers. And the people laid off will remember that the Republicans are largely responsible.

It’s been a bad year for the Republicans. But they could have moderately saved face by playing the politics to appear the savior of the automobile industry. Instead, they effectively fired the Midwest and will pay the price in 2010 and 2012 unless things start to turn around.

Anyone Else Tired of Blagojevich?

Well if you're not, Chris Cilliza has a terrific post about the GOP's attempts to show a connection between Obama and the scandal-ridden Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Will the Republicans succeed in tainting Obama's reformer image? Or will this newest attempt at slander simply come across as "more of the same"?

Even John McCain thinks the RNC has gone too far.

Obama: Be Bold with Health Care

Barack Obama ran his campaign promising to implement progressive programs and govern with progressive values. One of these programs is an ambitious health care reform package which promises to expand insurance coverage to hundreds of thousands of families and individuals. This admirable goal will be very difficult to achieve. But it is worth the fight.

Bill Clinton made health care reform one of the priorities of his first term. This plan was largely overshadowed by a number of scandals including sexual digressions and strategic mistakes in the President’s first two years. The reforms were also spearheaded by Ira Magaziner, who was largely responsible for their failure. Grasping the political opportunity, Republicans were determined to kill the health care proposal, claiming that it was an overly bureaucratic and inefficient government-run solution to a problem that concerned a small minority of the population. Clinton spent much of his political capital on a health care plan and lived with the consequences when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 1994. Timeline

Obama will face similar hurdles when it comes to passing his ambitious health care plan. On Thursday, Robert Dallek argued that President-elect Obama should follow President Lyndon Johnson’s example passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965: “Johnson in a sense sold civil rights to the country as a program of national well being. And that’s what I think needs to be done now with national health care.”

See the video, courtesy of Think Progress:


This is the kind of leadership we need right now on many issues, the most important being health care. The fact is that the majority of the country already has health care insurance. So that population could abandon this priority in favor of other (also necessary) economic recovery programs. In that case, the President needs to step in and fight for universal health care, even if it is not the most popular option. Lyndon Johnson lost the South for the Democrats because of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. But there is no doubt that he took the right stances on important issues. And our country is better off for it. President-elect Obama has the chance to provide similarly effective leadership on health care.

This reminds me of a 2006 Malcolm Gladwell article published in the New Yorker. It discusses an experimental program in Denver, CO dealing with the city’s homelessness problem. The article points out that Denver spends an alarming portion of the budget on health care and shelter services for its homeless and mentally ill population. Since hospitals are required to help all patients, regardless of their insurance status, “the kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it.”

The experimental program targeted the chronically homeless who had a history of injury and costly medical bills picked up by the state. The study found that

“you can house and care for a chronically homeless person for at most fifteen thousand dollars, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street. The idea is that once the people in the program get stabilized they will find jobs, and start to pick up more and more of their own rent, which would bring someone's annual cost to the program closer to six thousand dollars.”

Clearly there are problems with this model. It favors only a small portion of the city’s homeless and mentally ill population when everyone needs help. And where do you draw the line? Why do some homeless people deserve help and not others?

But the program best serves as a symbol for the benefits of creative governance. In general terms, liberals can support the program because it provides services to an at-risk population, and conservatives can support it because it saved the city a fortune in medical and shelter funds.
So when Obama begins crafting a strategy for health care reform, he should think outside the box. As Dallek suggests, he should not shy away from a fight and he should provide real leadership to pass a health care program that could save the federal government a bundle in the long run and provide health care services to hundreds of thousands of families and individuals who need it the most.

It looks like Obama's newly-announced Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle welcomes the fight and has already embraced a creative approach to the health care problem. Let's hope that desire remains and the Obama Administration makes some serious progress on health care early on.

Basking in Idiocy

Do you remember "Drill Baby Drill?" Against all logic and the advice of almost all energy experts, John McCain stuck to this mantra of "Drill Baby Drill." He even got Obama to say that he'd consider it and many liberals to believe that it was actually necessary to decrease the price of gasoline across the country. Well walking home from work today, I saw a gas sign that read $1.79 for a gallon of unleaded. And as far as I know, we aren't drilling off shore.

So this is just a memory of one of John McCain's stupidest campaign stunts.

The Human Side of Marriage

In Iowa today, the debate rages over the rights of homosexual men and women to marry. Iowa’s Supreme Court is hearing an appeal to a district judge’s decision to declare the state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional. The Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle argued that the decision should be overturned because "fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it. […] It’s not going to happen tomorrow. We’re not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you’ve got to look to the future.”

Yes, saying that homosexuals will “harm” marriage is going too far, but as divorce rates and adultery continue to skyrocket, a change in the institution of marriage could be the shot of energy needed to revive the practice.

But where does this definition of the virtuous, unblemished “institution of marriage” come from? Many Americans have an idea that the Bible clearly and succinctly says that men should not marry men and that women should not marry women. And if this law is disobeyed, then the heavens will reign down on the earth in violent fervor… or something like that.

Well that simply is not true, as documented by Lisa Miller of Newsweek in an article urging a religious, pro-family openness to gay marriage. Her argument is based on two truths. First, the Bible is a largely antiquated document, many sections of which have already been debunked by changing historical standards:

The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

Second, Miller says that the Bible simply does not state explicitly that homosexuals should not marry. Granted, it does not seem thrilled with the idea, but the religious opposition to gay marriage comes primarily from common practice:

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

Surprisingly, an article criticizing fervent opponents to Proposition 8 published in Creators also says that the anti-gay arguments attributed to the Bible are overblown:

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible are homosexuals called "an abomination." And no one, beyond one sick fringe family that has no standing in any religious community, refers to gays as "abominations." On the contrary, religious opponents of same-sex marriage always speak of "hating the sin, not the sinner.

Well, ostracizing homosexuals for the sin of loving who they love still seems pretty far-fetched, but the article supports the point that anti-gay sentiments come more from tradition than from the Bible.

So when it comes to states like Iowa and California, courts and legislatures need to think not about the Bible or antiquated conceptions of marriage and morality. They need to think about what humans need most from their families and friends to be successful. And Miller explains those needs very well:

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in Custody

This is the best succinct rundown I've seen about the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D). It appears that he was hoping to sell Obama's Senate seat for campaign contributions, professional positions for himself and his wife, or cold hard cash.

Great quotes highlighted by Politico:

“Unless I get something real good [for Senate candidate 1], s***, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying?”

...

"the Senate seat 'is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.'"

Will Dems GAIN (!) in 2010?

It has become a cliché of American politics that after two years of a President’s first term, his opposition party will fare extremely well in the midterm elections to take back the Senate, House or both. This happened disastrously in 1994 due to Clinton’s bungling of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and his attempt to pass Universal Health Care, which prompted a wave of Republican dominance and Newt Gingerich’s control of the House. Ouch.

So the big question of the day seemed to be: will the Democrats lose their large 58-seat (at least) lead in the Senate and their 257-seat majority in the House in the 2010 elections? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be no. But this does not necessarily mean that Democrats are going to remain wholly popular for the next two years. They are likely to hold onto their leads because in the political climate of 2010, some of the most popular Democrats will be up for reelection and some of the least popular Republicans will face their potential doom.

Let’s start with the Senate. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight gives a pretty complete rundown of the most competitive races in 2010 and the chances that those seats will change parties. Among other states, he points to Kansas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Kentucky and Nevada as the most likely to change parties. And in only one of those states - Nevada- would the Democratic incumbent (the vastly unpopular Harry Reid) lose to the Republican. And many argue that this is not as likely as conservatives would have you believe.

But the deep red state of Kansas is very promising for Democrats. The two-term Senator and 2008 Republican Presidential nominee Sam Brownback has announced that he will retire before that election. This will undoubtedly precipitate a contentious Republican Primary battle followed by a strong Democratic Challenger, Kathleen Sebelius. Sebelius, the popular Governor of Kansas was seriously considered as a VP candidate for the Obama ticket. When she was passed over for that position, it was a foregone conclusion that she would be offered a place in the Cabinet. But she has recently taken her name out of consideration, which suggests that she could be gearing up to take Brownback's open seat in 2010.

Pennsylvania is another likely Democratic pickup. Arlen Specter, the long-time Senator is expected to undergo intense opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in two years. He is vulnerable for a couple of reasons: his age, health, and the fact that Pennsylvania has become a deeper shade of blue in the past two elections. In 2004, he squeaked by Pat Toomey of the conservative Club for Growth in the Republican primary election. Toomey is expected to try again for Specter's spot. The Democrats have also lined up a few strong candidates, most notably Rep. Allyson Schwartz and Iraq War Veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy. Chris Bowers of OpenLeft handicaps the match ups here.

Silver also says that the Democrats have a pretty good chance to pick up seats in Ohio and Kentucky because of vulnerable Republican incumbents, but it is unclear so far which Democratic candidates would vie for those seats.

Keep in mind, that the seats vacated by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton will be targets for the Republicans because the interim candidates will not have much experience to run on in 2010. But those states, Illinois, Delaware, and New York are not traditionally strong red states, which gives Democrats a strong advantage.

All in all, due to the unique political climate of 2010, Silver predicts that the Democrats will net between 1-3 seats, which would be enough to propel them above the 60-seats needed to prevent a Republican filibuster. In a midterm election for a Democrat's first term, that would be incredible.

Since the races for vacancies and challenges in the House are much more complicated, I will let the pundits speak for themselves. Read this interview published on Salon.com with NBC National Political Director Chuck Todd, Chris Hays, the Washington Editor of the Nation, and Amy Walter, the editor-in-chief of the Hotline for the National Journal Group.

The exciting aspect to take away from these predictions is that the Democrats could maintain their advantages in the Executive and Legislative branches for the duration of Obama's first term. According to the likely political climate of 2010, it would take a serious bungling of foreign and domestic affairs for the Republicans to take back their advantage. And I'm talking Bush bungling.

Matthews Not Running for PA Senate Seat

Politico reports that Matthews will sign a long-term contract with MSNBC, which means that he will probably not run for Specter's seat that opens up in 2010.

Last Thursday, Chris Bowers of OpenLeft handicapped the race on the Democratic side for Specter's seat. He now predicts Rep. Allyson Schwartz and Rep. Patrick Murphy to be the Dem. front runners.