Go Get 'Em, Eric Holder!

Thankfully, we have an Attorney General who isn't afraid to stand up for voters' rights, even when the Supreme Court attempts to make it impossible.

Should Churches Be Taxed?

This article answers that question with an enthusiastic "Yes."  I'm not so sure I'm quick to agree with that.  Many churches conduct educational and charitable functions that would easily qualify for tax-exempt status if conducted by secular organizations (and do, in fact so, qualify, with the help of lawyers such as myself).  It would certainly be discriminatory to tax churches that engage in such activities.

On the other hand, the fact that an article like this can even be published with any degree of seriousness says quite a bit, sadly, about how polluted religion has become with politics--mostly (admittedly not exclusively) by the Religious Right.  It is no less discriminatory to give churches a tax exemption even if they electioneer to the same degree that non-exempt organizations (like political parties) do.

This is why the IRS needs to be able to examine the activities of organizations with exemptions, whether they are churches or other types of non-profits, on a case-by-case basis to ensure that their political activities do not exceed what Federal law permits.  And this is why it is not a "scandal" when they do so.  The only related scandal occurs when politicians who benefit from the mixing of church and state prosecute the IRS for doing nothing more than its job.

Are you listening, Darrell Issa?  Of course not.  You belong to a party that long ago lost any capacity for listening.  Are you listening, America?  You should be.

Memo To Gun Owners: The NRA Doesn't Work For You

Here's an example.  Remember how the NRA scares you about gun-control legislation, holding the dreaded prospect of a secret register of gun owners over your heads?  Well its too late.  The secret registry already exists.  But it wasn't created by the government, and the government doesn't own or have access to it.  Guess who does?

And what's to stop them from giving that information to anyone who can help expand its wealth and power--including government officials?

The NRA doesn't care about you, or your rights.  It cares deeply, passionately, solely about the NRA.  And if you do nothing about it, you'll have helped to sell everyone's rights down the river.  Including yours.

America Is On The March--But Which Way?

In an earlier post, I stated that, in contemporary America, the road to the center runs to the left.  Which is why it's worth following the national news to determine which way Americans are running.

Two recent election stories paint competing pictures of that direction. First, the recall elections in Colorado, in which two Democratic state senators were driven out of office via NRA-fueled campaigns opposing them for their role in supporting state gun-control legislation.  Second, the Democratic primary outcome in the race to be the next Mayor of New York City, in which a Democrat who focused on wealth inequality won with enough of a margin to avoid a run-off.

In some ways, the Colorado elections might seem to offer the more significant clue, as Colorado is a "purple state"--a formerly solid-red state that has trended toward the Democratic column in the past elections.  And too, the issue at state--gun regulation--is as hot-button an issue as any right now in the nation, and certainly one with a very sharp partisan divide.

Well, gun regulation lost.  But did it?

It's easy to read too much into the outcome of the Colorado recall elections.  Certainly, the NRA jumped all over the outcome, attempting to use the senators' defeat as a means by which to put the fear of God, or re-election, into the hearts of legislators everywhere.

But the NRA's take-away doesn't really hold up under a closer inspection of the results.  To begin with, the gun-nut movement in Colorado attempted to recall four senators--and only got enough petition signatures for two.  This effectively guaranteed that the outcome, in terms of their initial targets, would be draw at best, and leave the Colorado Senate in the hands of the Democrats.  And the two that lost?  One of them lost by a margin of two percent, with record-low turnout that was dampened in no small part by thuggish Election Day activities by the gun-nut movement.

This is the bottom line of what we should learn from Colorado:  turnout is absolutely essential, even in what are considered to be safely Democratic races.  This should be a wake-up call for Democrats in 2014:  if you don't show up at the polls, and don't show up at the polls, you have no right to complain when a fascist minority takes over.  And you can count on the fascist minority to not give you a chance or an outlet for complaining.

What about New York, then?  Why should that matter?  It's New York, after all, a safely blue state.  And it's a primary election.  Why should it matter which Democrat wins, so long as it's not the unfortunately-names Anthony Weiner?

Because invincibly Democratic New York City has been governed by Republicans for 20 years, with Republicans running hard to the right on crime and tax breaks for the wealthy.  In that climate, it seemed like only a tough-on-crime, soft-on-Wall-Street Democrat could stand a chance on becoming Mayor.  And there was a candidate who fit that bill:  Christine Quinn, the City Council President.  And, if her policy positions offended any Democrats (and they did, including yours truly), she offered some demographic consolations:  the possibility of giving New York City its first female Mayor, and its first openly gay one as well.

But Quinn didn't win.  She didn't even come in second.  She, and the rest of a crowded Democratic field, lost decisively to Bill de Blasio, the city's Public Advocate.  More than any other candidate, he used the current condition of New York to point out the obvious:  in a city where everyone works together to produce more wealth than any other metropolis, the rewards are not merely unequally shared, but are "shared" in a way that guarantees opulence for a few without ensuring survival for everyone else.  That message did not cost him votes.  It gained him enough votes to avoid a runoff election that everyone else thought was a foregone conclusion.  And it has him polling with a double-digit lead over his Republican counterpart.

The message of de Blasio's campaign is one that, sadly, has deep and devastating relevance for the entire nation.  It overpowered the "safer" messaging of Quinn and the other candidates, and it has him running ahead of the candidate for the party that has run the city for two decades.

Are you listening to what New York is telling you, Democrats?  It's safe to talk about the elephant in the room, and call him out for what he is:  a monster that cares more about holding on to wealth and power than about making a great nation greater.

Follow his lead.  And lead America back toward the center, by turning to the left.

John Boehner: Party Leader or National Leader?

 The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers ...

--U.S.Constitution, Article I, Section 2

The Speaker of the House of Representatives holds a constitutional office.  He, or she, has a constitutional obligation to act on behalf of the nation, and all of its people.  He, or she, is chosen by all of the members of the House to act on their behalf.

Not on behalf of a majority, or a majority of a majority.  On behalf of the whole House.  On behalf of the whole nation.

But you would never guess this by watching John Boehner, who has never stopped acting like a caucus leader even while serving as Speaker for the past two years and nine months.

As a matter of fact, he has not even been acting like a caucus leader.  Even a good caucus leader knows how to read the riot act to his craziest followers, being mindful of the fact that politics is the art of the possible, and that a party that specializes in political suicide will not be a party--or, at least, a national party--for very long.  A good caucus leader knows how to balance serving the needs of the caucus members with the need to work with the opposition.  A great caucus leader knows how to do this in such a way that the whole nation benefits as a result.  But even a merely good leader knows that a leader who acts like a follower with everyone ends up with no respect--and will not be a leader for very long.

John Boehner is Speaker of the House.  But he is an elected national leader who has chosen to remain a party leader, and has done so by acting like a follower, allowing the most insane members of his party to make demands he knows cannot be met, and pretending that he is somehow bound to follow "the majority of the majority."

Well, the majority of the majority is, by definition, a minority of the body that John Boehner has been elected to lead as Speaker.  He should have let Eric Cantor deal with the Tea Party crazies, and made it clear that he would only support legislation--be it the Federal budget, or comprehensive immigration reform--that could win the support of members from both sides of the aisle.  That's what he would have done if he had a clue about the Constitutional nature of his job.  That's what he would have done if he understood that leadership and self-assertion go hand in hand.

But all he has shown is that he likes the short-term perks of his job, and that, for now, he needs the help of the crazies to keep those perks.

Which is why we are on the verge of a government shutdown nobody wants (except the crazies, of course).  Which is why we could have CIR right now, except that the crazies, and therefore Boehner, won't allow a vote on it.  Which is why, at a time when the deficit is falling and public spending is desperately needed to provide jobs and growth, we have a House of Representatives looking for new and more exciting ways to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.

Because John Boehner, its Speaker, has opted to act not as a national leader or even as a party leader, but as the leader of the Tea Party caucus, a caucus that doesn't want to be led, or even to share leadership.  It just wants to destroy everything it doesn't like, in the name of freedom--its freedom, not everyone's.

Which is why, after the next election, neither the nation nor its House will have to worry about either John Boehner, or the Tea Party, ever again.

G-d willing, that is.  Because He, She, It or They works in mysterious ways.  And history teaches us that America's learning curve is very steep.  Which is why Winston Churchill once said that you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing--after they've tried everything else.

Just One More 9/11 Post

But a worthy one.  This is my kind of memorial.

What's More Powerful Than A Gun In Stopping Violence?

Courage.  One woman's personal courage, in particular.  Enough said.  For now.

Except for this.

May the victims of the Navy Yard tragedy rest in peace.  May their family and friends be comforted.  And may the rest of us get up off our asses and stop being afraid of the NRA.

What North Carolina Is Proving

Namely, that the need for the Voting Rights Act has not gone away.

The Real Difference Between Democrats And Republicans

Democrats worry about the suffering of everyone; Republicans worry about their own suffering.  But sometimes, when it comes to their own suffering, it just might be enough to get them to see the proverbial bigger picture.  On the subject of health care, here's one example.

Then again, here's another.

Why No City Or Neighborhood Should Ever Be Declared "Dead"

Because, as long as there are people who want to stay, there will always be a fighting chance for life.  Bushwick, a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York is an excellent case in point.

During the New York City blackout of 1977, no single neighborhood was more devastated by rioting and looting than Bushwick.  An already poor area, Bushwick lost most if not all of its merchants as a consequence of the rioting during the blackout, and the subsequent abandonment of the neighborhood by many of the few survivors.  To this day, one can find parts of Bushwick where the damage done during that terrible night is still visible, and unrepaired.

The devastation is best summed up by a letter to the editor in The New York Times, in response to an article about a plan to turn an old brewery in Bushwick into a shopping mall.  The author flatly stated that "Bushwick is dead," and urged that the money for the project be put into neighborhoods with a better chance for revival.  "Let Bushwick rest in peace," the letter concluded.

Well, artists and other urban pioneers weren't prepared to do that and, today, Bushwick is out-pacing the neighboring community of Ridgewood in Queens when it comes to rising rents.  When I lived in Queens in the late '70s and early '80s, Ridgewood was considered the more desirable of the two neighborhoods; now, on a market basis, it's the other way around.

Take a look, and take heart from Bushwick's story, especially if you live in an area that hasn't had its revival yet.  And reflect on the role the arts could play in making it happen for you.

Will Wonders Never Cease, Part 2

The institutional racism of the University of Alabama's Greek societies is appalling, but the sight of white and black students marching together in protest of it is inspiring.  May this be the beginning of a truly new South.

And One More Helpful Hint For The Democrats In 2014

Point out to the American people that Republicans deem a six-figure income to be an inadequate wage.

Inadequate for whom?  It shouldn't be inadequate at all for a member of "The People's House."  Especially when the median income for The People is less than one-third of what the complaining Republican House member makes, and is in fact a step back from the 1989 level.

If Congressman Gingrey really feels stuck, I know of a lot of Democrats who would be happy to help him with his predicament--by throwing him out of office and back into the free market he and his colleagues champion.

Democrats should not only make an issue out of his feeling "stuck," but also combine it with a campaign pledge to cut Congress' budget and members' salaries.  Then we'll have a chance to find out who's really in favor of "less government."

The Road To The Center Runs To The Left

I know how the Democrats can retake control of Congress.  In spite of gerrymandering.  In spite of voter restrictions.  In spite of the post-Citizens United flow of mystery money.

How?

By doing what they should have done years ago.  Run to the left, to energize their base.  And argue like hell, at the same time, that they are really running toward the center.

I know what you're thinking.  They can do this now because, over the past five years, what's left of the Republican Party has engaged in a public free-fall toward total insanity.  But the truth of the matter is that they should have done it years ago.  Thirty-four, to be exact.  Just as Saint Ronnie was getting elected and preparing to charm the rest of us into bankruptcy.

Because, after all, that's how he did it.  By running hard to the right, to energize his base, and argue like hell (or heck, at least), that he was running toward the center.

Whether he was busting unions, or regressing tax rates, he always painted a verbal portrait of his actions that were meant to invoke not a brave new world, but a nostalgic old one.  He wasn't taking America in some unfamiliar, evil direction.  No, he was simply restoring its long lost past.  And not even the actual past that we had, but the Hollywood version of that past--the version that we, filled with glamorized images of our 20th-century rise to power, pretended had actually happened.  So there was nothing to fear.  Not even fear itself.  All we had to do was trust that Reagan's actions were not sinister when his words were so appealing, and we would all be living in the "great, big, beautiful tomorrow" that his former corporate patron, General Electric, promised America at the 1964-65 New York World's Fair.

Of course, more than three decades later, we should know better--and do, for the most part.  We should have known better from the beginning.  But we Americans have always believed in a future in which everyone joined together for the common good, giving up a little of themselves for the sake of everyone.  In the political world, defined by a system with two major parties, the cliche for this process is "finding the vital center."

Well, that's exactly what the Democrats should offer the American people, now and all the way into next fall.

Finding the vital center, by adjusting the minimum wage so that it regains the purchasing power it had in the 1960s.

Finding the vital center, by returning to workers the power to collectively bargain for its interests, and thus the power to gain all the rights we now take for granted, including a 40-hour work week.

Finding the vital center, by ending the practice of using public and private pensions (including and especially Social Security) to fund the egomaniacal fantasies of hedge-fund managers and other riverboat gamblers on Wall Street.

Finding the vital center, by returning to a world in which investment and commercial banks are separated.

Finding the vital center, in which mergers are not funded with debt, the way stock-buying was funded during the Roaring '20s.

Finding the vital center, by accepting the central role of scientific fact in our policy-making for the present, and our planning for tomorrow, as we once did in traveling to the moon and connecting the world through the Internet.

Finding the vital center, by once again accepting immigrants not as nation-destroyers but as nation-builders, and always remembering that the central icon in our national culture, after the Stars and Stripes, is a statue built to exemplify that view of new arrivals to our shores.

Finding the vital center, by once again placing at the center of our economy policy the interests of the consumer, the true leader in our financial empire, whose needs and desires create the opportunities that capitalists then exploit.

Finding the vital center, by ending the demonizing of government and recognizing that government in a democracy is "We The People," acting together for the common good, not "Them The One Percent" buying bureaucrats and politicians for self-serving purposes.

And finally, finding the vital center by returning to our post-World War II role in world affairs, not as a lone gunslinger, but as first among equals in a nation where cooperation is the first choice, and conflict is almost always a choice to be avoided.

I believe that the Democrats have to show Americans next year, for the sake of the party and the nation, that the road to the left is not a road to a foreign land, but rather a bridge to the kind of America they basically believe in, an America that existed within their own lifetimes, and that can exist again.

Because if they don't do it, they, and we, may never get another chance to find that vital center.  We may be stuck on a downward slide toward a Fascism from which we can never recover.  But if they can run to the left, and show the nation that doing so really is a run to the center, we may really become a shining city on a hill after all.

UPDATE, 9/19/13:  The Democrats' job may be easier than people think.   Here's someone else who agrees.

Democracy Gets It Right With The Twin Towers Site

And so, for the twelfth time since Al-Queda turned four passenger airplanes into terrorist missiles, September 11th has come and gone.

I once wrote that one doesn't measure recovery from a tragedy of this magnitude in days, weeks or months, but rather in years and even in decades.  We are now more than a decade beyond those horrible hours during which we electronically witnessed the deaths of thousands of innocents, some of whom were only beginning to truly live their lives.

For me, over these twelve years, the anniversary has frankly always been a bag of mixed emotions.  Part of that stems from the fact that it was my late father's birthday--and, no matter what, I feel bound a sense of filial duty and personal love to spend part of the day focused on him, and on what he meant to me and so many others.  But the mixed emotions are also about the day itself, about what it meant to the nation, and about how we remember and honor it.

I remember being appalled by the immediate use of the attacks as an excuse to not only unilaterally advance the partisan agenda of the party on whose watch the attacks had occurred, but to also willfully subvert the Constitution in order to do it.  The party of "toughness" wrote a feckless interpretation of our most fundamental rights into law, and handed terrorism a five-star victory even while cities were burning and bodies were bleeding.  I remember being beyond appalled by the march to war in which this same party successfully bullied not only their political opponents, but also the truth itself.  All of this compounded the damage done to the nation and our lives--and will take decades more of recovery, with no guarantee that it will ever arrive.

None of that, however, changes what happened on September 11, 2001.  Over three thousand people lost their lives and, for a time, the greatest city in the nation feared for its economic (if not for its physical) future.  How do you honor and remember the victims?  How do you ensure the future of New York, the greatest and most successful intersection of culture, commerce and community in the history of the world?

As it turned out, democracy held the answer.

The City and State of New York opened the memorial/rebuilding process up to the public in an unprecedented way, giving thousands of people in New York and even across the nation an opportunity to give direct and specific input into what was to be built on the former site of the World Trade Center.  Architects from around the world were invited to submit proposals for both a memorial and new office space, and the public was allowed to vote on them.  Along with these proposals, there was heated debate about the general plan for the site itself.  Should it have any office space at all?  Should it have any type of tall structure at all?  What could be done to ensure protection against another attack?

The process was long and drawn out.  It ranged from the general plan to the most specific of details about the lives and dreams of the victims and the city.  It produced ideas ranging from rebuilding the Twin Towers to turning the entire site into a memorial park.  It led to the selection of a single proposal that, in turn, was refined by even more discussion and debate.  All of the discussion and debate was passionate, even angry at times, but it remained focused on the goals of remembrance and recovery.

And, in the end, that's exactly what we have on the site.

Two giant voids on the footprints of the Twin Towers, containing memorial fountains and the names of the lost.  A combination of emptiness, serenity, and memory.  Surrounded by new towers that will help to carry on the economic life of New York, and will help us to remember not just how the victims died, but how they lived as well.

Democracy isn't always pleasant or peaceful.  In fact, it's often the case that it's working really well when it is at its least pleasant and peaceful.  But it's the only political path that leads all of us to where we need to be.  We need to remember that fact, as much as anything else from September 11th, and hold as tightly as we can onto this messy, heated, drawn-out thing called democracy, and not let its enemies--within and without--take it from us.  Too many people have died for it.  Too few of the living realize not only how much we owe them, but also ourselves.

Will Wonders Never Cease

So the CIA has finally admitted it engineered the coup that put the Shah of Iran into power, and thereby set in motion decades of tragedy for us, and mostly for Iran.

America's foreign policy would benefit greatly, as would Americans, from an application of the Hippocratic Oath:  "First, do no harm."