The Other

All of the health care bills offer their subsidies to those who need help affording coverage through tax credits. This is seen as completely normal and a cost-effective way to provide such subsidies, since it only requires a new line item on the tax form instead of some new structure for paying out credits. But it actually hurts people who have to lay out money for health insurance and then wait all year until April to get their money back. In addition, some groups, like nonprofits, don't pay taxes. But they also provide health care for their workers, which means they cannot benefit from any tax credits for small businesses to help with affordability in the plan.

The main bill in the House would award a tax credit to small businesses that provide their employees with health insurance — but nonprofits do not pay income taxes and thus would not benefit.

“Why should employees of nonprofits be treated worse than employees of for-profit businesses?” said Jonathan A. Small, government affairs consultant at the Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York.

Nonprofit groups were hoping that the president would include them in his speech to Congress on Wednesday, but instead he mentioned only “families, businesses and government.”

“There was nothing in that much-repeated trilogy of those needing help that spoke to nonprofits,” said Lester M. Salamon, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

This sounds like a nitpicky point, except that nonprofits are collectively the fourth-largest employer in America.

And there are dozens of little inequities like this. We've heard about the canceling of all individual health insurance, essentially, for undocumented immigrants, even when they have the ability to pay with their own money. Then there's the issue of nurse home care for the children of the poor, a proven crime reduction strategy that has run aground amid shouts of "billions for babysitters" and the like.

It's part and parcel of a long-running strategy by the right to cry martyrdom for their tax dollars being given to the undefined "other." It doesn't matter if a government program reduces crime or saves money or just makes moral sense. This boils down to a largely homogenous Republican Party not wanting their money to go to people who don't look like them or don't act like them or don't work like them. "Illegals" or the undeserving poor or "do-gooders" in the nonprofit sector need not apply. It's been a time-tested tactic going back to Richard Nixon's Southern strategy.

This is the paradox of the tea-party movement and other right-wing protests fueled by genuine citizen anger and fear. It is true that the federal government embraces redistributive policies and that middle-class income is seized in order that "someone else benefits." But so obviously, that "someone else" who is benefiting is not the poor and lower classes -- who continue to get poorer as the numbers living below the poverty line expand and the rich-poor gap grows in the U.S. to unprecedented proportions. The "someone else" that is benefiting from Washington policies are -- as usual -- the super-rich, the tiny number of huge corporations which literally own and control the Government. The premise of these citizen protests is not wrong: Washington politicians are in thrall to special interests and are, in essence, corruptly stealing the country's economic security in order to provide increasing benefits to a small and undeserving minority. But the "minority" here isn't what Fox News means by that term, but is the tiny sliver of corporate power which literally writes our laws and, in every case, ends up benefiting [...]

What's really happening with these protests is that the genuine rage and not unreasonable economic insecurity of these citizens is being stoked, exploited, distorted and manipulated by movement leaders for entirely different ends. The people who are leading them -- Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, business-dominated organizations of the type led by Dick Armey -- are cultural warriors above everything else. They're all in a far different socioeconomic position than the "middle-income Americans" whose anger they're ostensibly representing. Their principal preoccupation is their cultural contempt for various groups (illegal immigrants, the "undeserving" poor, liberals) and their desire to preserve the status quo whereby the prime beneficiaries of government policies remain themselves: the super rich and the interests that control Washington. It's certainly true that many of these protesters are driven by the standard right-wing cultural issues which have long shaped that movement -- social issues, religious fears, cultural and racial divisions, and hatred for "liberals" as Communist-Muslim-Terrorist-lovers. For many, all of that is intensified by the humiliation of being completely thrown out of power, at the hands of the first black President. But much of it is fueled by the pillaging of the corporations and Wall St. interests which own their government.

Matt Taibbi called it the peasant mentality. The powers that be get the lower classes to fight amongst themselves and split along ideological or tribal or other identifying lines, leaving room for them to prosper. For Republicans, that means painting their opponents, who are less homogenous and are made up of so-called "outsiders" of society - the poor, the disenfranchised, African-Americans, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, etc. - as undeserving of really anything; and painting the leaders of that party - whether it be a Governor from Arkansas or a war hero from Massachusetts or South Dakota or a multicultural community organizer from Illinois - as the head of a movement to destroy American culture. That's really basically it. And sadly, considering that Democrats have over the last several decades abandoned their role as protectors of the weak, the poor and the voiceless, you can almost sympathize with the misled in the teabagging protests, who finds nobody standing up for them.

Except, their susceptibility to what is essentially a racial argument leaves me little room to share sympathy for their concerns.

The Poor, The Adrift, The Uninsured

We interrupt yesterday, today and tomorrow's media soccer scrum ("Does Ellen DeGeneres Think Michael Vick Should Agree With Joe Wilson About Health Care?") to bring you the consequences of a Gilded Age economy:

The U.S. Census Bureau has just announced that the poverty rate for 2008 was 13.2%. This means the number of people in poverty has increased by about 2.5 million, to 39.8 million. To give you some perspective, 2.5 million is more than the number of people who live in Detroit and San Francisco combined.

The Census data is just devastating, particularly when you take into account that the numbers come before the job loss in the first 8 months of this year. In addition to the uptick in the poverty rate, real median household income fell 3.6%, the biggest drop in 40 years. The richest tenth of one percent saw their incomes rise by 35% over the last 10 years while median incomes stayed flat. And the number of Americans lacking health insurance increased by about 700,000 to at least 46.3 million, which does not account for the under-insured. In fact, if it wasn't for government programs, this number would be far worse.

Things would have been worse but for one thing: continued expansion of government-provided health insurance coverage. Between 2007 and 2008, the proportion of Americans reporting any private coverage fell by 0.8 percentage points, from 67.5 percent to 66.7 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage reporting some form of government coverage rose by 1.2 points, from 27.8 percent to 29.0 percent [...]

First, the absolute number of uninsured has increased. Second, employer-based coverage is eroding. Third, adverse trends in private coverage are partly masked in the overall numbers by the rise in public coverage.

Fourth, improved insurance coverage among children--thanks largely to Medicaid and SCHIP--is more than offset by increases in the number and proportion of uninsured working-age adults. As shown in the final column, the number of uninsured adults increased by almost 9 million in nine years. Since working-age adults are much more likely to actually get sick, this is a significant economic and public health concern.

Yes, it's been government - eeevil, socialist government - which has had to step into the breach and take care of its citizenry amid a failing private market. And that includes your local fire department, increasingly becoming a primary care doctor for millions of Americans.

In 2008, fire departments around the country responded to 15.8 million medicals calls, a 213 percent increase over the 5 million medical runs record in 1980. The combining of cities’ fire and emergency medical services accounts for some of the increase.

But as the logs of a Washington, D.C., fire company show, the lack of health insurance by too many people—especially low-income families—has turned some local fire departments into mobile emergency rooms.

In one 24-hour period this summer, D.C.’s Engine Company No. 10 responded to more than two dozen emergency calls—two fires and the rest were medical emergencies. It is the same throughout the District. The Times reports the D.C. fire department responded to more medical emergency calls per capita than any other in the nation—and most come from poor neighborhoods [...] such calls tie up a community’s resources and cost communities more because so many calls for emergency medical care aren’t true medical emergencies. Also, the increasing reliance on first responders and on 911 also comes at a time when firefighters and paramedics all across the country are being laid off, as the nation’s economic woes place a strain on public budgets. The recession is shrinking our resources and reducing manpower while the demand for emergency medical care is skyrocketing.

Best health care system in the history of man.

This is bigger than just health care, though, and it's driving a lot of the anxiety out there. Recessions are disruptive events, but in previous years quick turnarounds would blunt the pain. More recently, jobless recoveries that last years and years have become the norm, and as a result, people cannot keep up. Inequality has risen to an almost comical degree, while more and more people sit on the other side of a gated community. This breeds anger, unrest, and ultimately enormous amounts of needless suffering.

And as long as government is captive to interests which place their corporate well-being above the well-being of the people, it will remain this way.

Poor People Can Just Go To Free Clinics

I'm sure that the right thinks there's no need for health care reform because the system works great right now. If you get sick you go to the emergency room, and Bob's your uncle. Here's GoOPer Jack Kingston saying basically that. And here's Connecticut for Lieberman's own Joe Lieberman saying how great the current system working, meaning there's no need for a public option.

On Planet Reality, the only reason that the American system doesn't look like a total nightmare, I mean a people-dying-in-the-streets nightmare, is because of numerous local efforts to keep things afloat. The "just go to the ER" approach adds tens of billions to health care costs. But even that isn't being used to the extent it could, because of the existence of free community clinics. Which will cease to exist before long, on the current trajectory.

The Mission of Mercy, a group of traveling clinics that circulate through towns in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas and Arizona, is one of more than 1,200 free clinics across the nation that are feeling the effects of the economic downturn.

Their patient lists are growing as Americans lose their jobs and their health insurance, but as demand grows with rising unemployment, their donations are dwindling. This year, Mission of Mercy has $350,000 less than it did last year; it takes no government funds for its services.

"People are so afraid to give now, because they're thinking they could lose their job next," said Linda Ryan, the executive director of Mission of Mercy. "We're squished because we have more people in need; we need to grow now more than ever — who knows what will happen with health care?"

Over the past year, free clinics across the country have seen a 20 percent decrease in donations and a 40 percent to 50 percent increase in patients, said Nicole D. Lamoureux, the executive director of the National Association of Free Clinics. Last year, the clinics the association represents — which largely have been excluded from the health care debate — treated 4 million people. This year, Lamoureux expects, they'll serve some 8 million, 83 percent of whom come from homes in which at least one person works full time.

"Quite frankly, the need is so great at some point in time we'll hit a place where we have to say we need to start cutting," Lamoureux said. "We'd like to be a part of those discussions (on health care.) We really need to make sure that this legislation gives the people we serve access to quality health care."

The New York Times did a good story on one of these clinics, in Milwaukee, which is doing its best but cannot hope to survive given the increase in demand.

The current system forces many of the nation's poor, even people who have jobs, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE COVERAGE through Medicaid or Medicare, to visit these community clinics, which just don't have the funds to survive. There are often no other options for primary care. These clinics are the last line of defense and they're failing. They're staffed by good people who selflessly seek to protect and care for everyone regardless of ability to pay. They won't exist in a decade.

And then everyone will TRULY see the consequences of a for-profit health care system, if no reform is accomplished.

Voices From The Wilderness

Look at this, a media organization bothered to interview some of the people suffering the most under the current health care system!

Such scaremongering has dismayed and infuriated Sharon Lee, the doctor who now treats Manley in Kansas City. "I'm very angry, very angry," she says. "Many of the people I treat have already been in front of a death panel and have lost – a death panel controlled by insurance companies. I see people dying at least monthly because we have been unable to get them what they needed."

Lee's clinic, Family Health Care, is a refuge of last resort. It picks up the pieces of lives left shattered by a health system that has failed them, and tries to glue them back together. It exists largely outside the parameters of formal health provision, raising funds through donations and paying all its 50 staff – Lee included – a flat rate of just $12 an hour [...]

Beth Gabaree, who came in to see Lee for the first time this morning, has experiences that sound extreme but are in fact quite typical. She has diabetes and a heart condition. Until two years ago they were controlled through ongoing treatment paid for by her husband's work-based health insurance. But he was in a motorbike crash that pulverised his right leg and put him out of work.

That Catch 22 again: no work, no insurance, no treatment. Except in this case it was Beth who went without treatment, in order to put her husband's dire needs first. He receives ongoing specialist care that costs them $500 a go, leaving nothing for her. So she stopped seeing a doctor, and effectively began self-medicating. She cut down from two different insulin drugs to regulate her diabetes to one, and restricted her heart drugs. "I do what I think I need to do to keep four steps out of hospital. I know that's not the right thing, but I can't justify seeing the doctor when my family's already in money trouble."

The problem is that she hasn't kept herself four steps out of hospital. Her health deteriorated and earlier this year she became bedridden. Even then, it took her family several days to persuade her to go to the emergency room because she didn't want to incur the hospital costs. "It was hard enough without that," she says.

After an initial consultation, Lee has now booked Gabaree for a new round of tests for her diabetes and is arranging for free medication. "It's wonderful," Gabaree says. "I'm so blessed. I didn't know you could get this sort of help."

That she sees basic healthcare as a blessing, not as a right, speaks volumes about attitudes among the mass of the working poor. Also revealing is the fact that Gabaree has absolutely no idea about the debate raging across America. She hasn't even heard of Obama's push for health reform, nor the Republican efforts to prevent it. "I don't watch much television," she says.

There are 47 million voiceless people who have no access to the health care debate itself, let alone access to participate in it. They would be the biggest beneficiaries of reform, and yet they lack information about what is being attempted, and they certainly lack the wherewithal to do anything meaningful about it. At least this one news organization has offered a small voice to those suffering through the horrors of the lifestyle of the permanent underclass in America.

One thing though.

This story will never be read in an American newspaper. It comes from The UK Guardian.

Hey, at least the Brits are getting the full range of debate...

70 Cents An Hour

As the final phase from a bill passed back in 2007, today the federal minimum wage rises to $7.25 an hour from $6.55 for workers across the country. This brings the federal minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, back to where it was in the 1990s. It's hard to determine how many minimum-wage employees there are out there, but the best guess is that five million people get a raise today. Here's one of them.

While those workers include thousands of financially secure students still living with Mom and Dad, they also include thousands of the most impoverished and vulnerable members of the workforce – those who sink further into debt each month as ordinary expenses outweigh their meager paychecks.

April Greer, 36, is one of them.

Her troubles began in December, when her husband was sent to prison for a parole violation, leaving her the sole provider for her three teenage children who live with her.

In January, she was fired from her job at a cellular provider. She said she was late for work because her sister-in-law commandeered her car.

She spent early spring trawling East Dallas for a new job, but, like millions of Americans, she found none.

In early May, Greer's electricity provider finally turned out the lights. A few days later, her landlord changed the locks. She and her children crowded into the South Dallas bungalow of her husband's parents.

She finally caught a break two months ago, when a nonprofit agency helped her land a part-time, minimum-wage job at T.J. Maxx, taking home about $800 a month.

Two weeks ago, after she started having dizzy spells at work, she collapsed and spent two days in the hospital.

Doctors aren't sure what's wrong with her. Maybe diabetes. Maybe her heart. Maybe just stress.

Greer knows she can't afford $434 a month for the medication her doctor says she needs. She can barely afford the $100 a week she's been paying her in-laws to cover their ballooning utility bills.

She wants to find a second job, but doesn't know if her body can take it.

"Since I'm the only one right now for my kids, I have to take care of my health," she said.

Those with the lowest incomes are often those who have the most health issues. That comes from stress, overwork, the lack of a nutritious diet, living in low-income environments where more pollution exists, and a variety of other factors. In this most cruel of American landscapes, the poor and the sick often are the same person.

But what we'll hear today is how adding 70 cents an hour will bankrupt businesses. In actuality it will act as a mini-stimulus, giving the poor about $28 more a week for necessities that will almost certainly get spent and cycled into the economy.

What we certainly won't hear about is how the struggle of these minimum-wage workers fits into the health care debate. Many are probably already on Medicaid, but a provision in the bill would limit out-of-pocket costs for everyone, and expanding access would help make sure nobody who needs health coverage slips through the cracks. The air-blown press corps may have thought Obama's press conference was bor-ring, but the issues discussed directly affect the lives of people like April Greer. It would be nice if they could take up the debate with some inkling of concern for her, rather than acting like theater critics critiquing how folsky or animated the President was during his press conference.

Republicans and fiscal scolds say we just cannot afford to help someone like April. She ought to just get a job with the government. But Krugman says something important today - contrary to conservative belief, access and cost control are complementary.

Why does meaningful action on medical costs go along with compassion? One answer is that compassion means not closing your eyes to the human consequences of rising costs. When health insurance premiums doubled during the Bush years, our health care system “controlled costs” by dropping coverage for many workers — but as far as the Bush administration was concerned, that wasn’t a problem. If you believe in universal coverage, on the other hand, it is a problem, and demands a solution.

Beyond that, I’d suggest that would-be health reformers won’t have the moral authority to confront our system’s inefficiency unless they’re also prepared to end its cruelty. If President Bush had tried to rein in Medicare spending, he would have been accused, with considerable justice, of cutting benefits so that he could give the wealthy even more tax cuts. President Obama, by contrast, can link Medicare reform with the goal of protecting less fortunate Americans and making the middle class more secure.

As a practical, political matter, then, controlling health care costs and expanding health care access aren’t opposing alternatives — you have to do both, or neither.

April Greer probably just wants the peace of mind that she can get treatment when she needs it, without going deeply and overwhelmingly into debt in the process. Long-term budgetary constraints and bending cost curves matter less to her. But Krugman is right that the two are not in conflict, and must be packaged together.

I'm happy April is getting a small raise for her troubles today. I want her to get a health care system that honors her struggle and provides her security. But Senators need a three-week recess, so she'll have to wait.

The Last Straw

Outside of the murder of thousands of innocent American citizens, I was all set to ease up on Al Qaeda in this new climate of bipartisanship and unity. But then Ayman al-Zawahiri goes and calls Barack Obama a House Negro. I guess literally translated he said "house slaves," but the English subtitles that Al Qaeda helpfully provided said "House Negro."

For a legitimate analysis of this speech, go to Juan Cole (basically Zawahiri was calling Obama a pro-white slave, which is crucially wrong). But I'm going to just shake my head and wonder, "If we can't trust the terrorists to be tolerant of all races, what hope do any of us have?" By the way, Ayman, you're not exactly Aryan yourself. And neither are 99.9% of all Muslims who have experienced the sting of discrimination.

I think Cole's final thoughts are on point:

It is absolutely clear toward the end of the video that al-Zawahiri is petrified of Obama's popularity and is very afraid that he will be a game-changer in relations between the Muslim world and the United States. Hence his flailing around talking about house slaves, as though Obama were not (as of Jan. 20) himself the most powerful man in the world, catapulted into his position by nearly half of American whites (who voted for him in higher proportions than they did for Clinton and Kerry).

Al-Zawahiri has seen a lot of Muslim politics, and if he is this afraid of Obama, it is a sign that the new president has enormous potential to deploy soft power against al-Qaeda, and al-Zawahiri is running scared, trying to pretend it is still the 1960s, when it just isn't.

(Strangely, Zawahiri and McCain, through the focus on Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground, share this error!)

There is certainly a desperation in the Al Qaeda leader's speech, a recognition that moderate Muslims can be pushed back to the side of the West in this struggle. The fact of Obama's skin color and his policy on diplomatic engagement disarms a major element of Al Qaeda's propaganda, that the US punishes minorities and ignores the world. More than anything, Al Qaeda detests open societies, which is among the promises of an Obama victory. They fear the change he represents.

However, beyond the symbolism, which is significant, this also has to be about policy. To truly capitalize on this moment to marginalize terrorist extremists, we need to end practices like this:

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 19--The United States, the world's largest international aid donor, is among the worst at promoting the independence, impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian aid deliveries to needy populations, according to a survey by a Madrid-based nonprofit group that monitors donors' performance.

The Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) Humanitarian Response Index 2008 measures how effectively the world's 23 largest donors deliver aid. The United States ranked 15th in overall effectiveness and only 13th in the level of generosity measured by the size of its economy.

But it ranked near the bottom, 22nd, when it came to adherence to principles and guidelines established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to ensure that political considerations don't exclude worthy recipients of aid.

DARA's findings reflect what it called the United States' use of humanitarian assistance to achieve military or political goals in eight crisis zones the group studied, including Afghanistan, Colombia and the Palestinian territories.

A more progressive counter-terrorism strategy not only takes into account the role of local law enforcement and intelligence in disrupting plots, but it treats the world less like pieces on a chess board and more like equals. And in this context, the security benefit to seeking real humanitarian goals and reducing poverty is incalculable. In other words, less missile strikes and more bowls of rice, schools and bridges. We must lead with our values because that's the best way to show countries the world over that this Administration is really different.

Spencer Ackerman had a great piece on what a progressive counter-terrorism policy would look like that is well worth your time.

A Bush Dog Revels In Poverty

Considering all of the rural areas and dirt-poor urban centers in the country, you have to be a little surprised that Jim Costa's Central Valley district is the worst in the country for quality of life.

Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley's 20th Congressional District dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.

Even notoriously grim Appalachia fares better than the congressional district that sweeps in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties, the study made public Wednesday shows. The assessment of health, education and income ranks the district 436th out of 436 districts nationwide.

CA-20 has the lowest rate of college graduates in the country, just 6.5%. The median annual salary is just $16,767, and life expectancy is 4.5 years lower than in rich, high well-being areas like the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It's an appalling set of numbers.

We know the challenges in this district. Factory-style farming has lowered the air quality and increased the public health risks. As income inequality stratifies, places like the Central Valley get left behind, even more so in a California with a 6.9% unemployment rate. A lack of development into 21st-century jobs causes a brain drain, and higher energy prices cripple rural America.

And there's a residual benefit. A dirt-poor district is a district that doesn't vote heavily or pay much attention to politics, paradoxically so since they need to the most. And so we get Representatives like Jim Costa, whose district has the lowest participation rates in the entire state. Which means he can vote the wrong way on issues like FISA or war funding and not get much feedback about it from a constituency that's struggling to survive. In this context, his desire to return federal funds to the district or improve quality of life would seem to be low, at best. It's a vicious circle: poverty breeds inattention, inattention breeds bad lawmakers, bad lawmakers have trouble improving poverty.

We need less legislators like Jim Costa who seem more interested in pleasing their corporate contributors than the suffering citizens in their own districts. The problem is how to reach a low-information constituency, and how to make that connection, that sustained political power and engagement is vital if we want to end poverty and build the post-carbon, post-agrarian economy that would lift up whole regions like the Central Valley.

AP: Bullying Bloggers And Lying About Democrats!

It shouldn't be too surprising that Barack Obama, who started his community organizing career working for a local church helping displaced steelworkers, would see some value in faith-based initiatives. And Bush's iteration of this policy was to talk about faith-based anti-poverty policies and then hand out cash to rich megachurches who did no such thing, so if money would legitimately be channeled to fight poverty I don't really care about the conduit. Where I drew the line is if Obama supported the ability for churches to fire workers based on their faith, as this AP article asserts.

According to Obama's own speech, that's not true:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Churches already have a place in many communities, so they're an efficient conduit for these types of programs. Soup kitchens are often in church basements, and even as a secular humanist that doesn't make me jittery. If Obama is true to his word here, he's showing a respect for those church organizations who work to improve the lives of those in their community, as well as respecting the letter of the law.

The AP isn't getting their facts right. I know the blogosphere is in a mode where they assume the worst about Obama, and certainly it's merited in some cases. But while you can argue with this policy, he's not allowing discrimination.

UPDATE: Digby disagrees. I understand that she considers tax-exempt status to be a quid-pro-quo relationship for charity work. My preference would be to either codify that or to eliminate the tax exemption, something we'll never see. I don't know, this just doesn't bug me all that much.

UPDATE II: And now Steve Benen, who worked on this issue for Americans United Against the Separation of Church and State, weighs in. If he thought it was problematic he'd have no problem saying it. The first paragraph is notable:

The notion of the government contracting with religious ministries to provide social services is not, on its face, scandalous or unconstitutional. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have partnered with public officials for decades, almost always without incident. There have always been safeguards in place to protect church-state separation, the integrity of the ministry, and the rights of those who receive the benefits.

If Catholic Charities is truly prosyletizing and threatening to end their charity work if they're not allowed to hire only Catholics, that's one thing. But it's important to note that legally, there's not much recourse. The Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that discrimination in the withholding of funds based on religion is unconstitutional. Government has to remain neutral in funding non-religious activities between secular and religious organizations. Some of it might be creative accounting, but that happens to be the law.

John Edwards: Still Caring About Poverty

One thing I hate about the media generally is that they constantly attribute policy concerns to some political motive. Nobody can have a particular interest in, say, Constitutional issues when it comes to Russ Feingold, or FISA when it comes to Chris Dodd. They always are doing it with some political motive. And I think we all can admit that's SOMETIMES true, but there's actually a way to determine if it's true in each particular case. For example, when the candidate in question is still pushing his signature issue long after any political benefit can be gathered, then I think you can say he means it.

Former Sen. John Edwards ended his Democratic presidential campaign nearly four months ago, but he was back on the stump today in the Tioga section of North Philadelphia, calling poverty "a moral cause facing every single one of us" in the United States.

"What we do for each other says something about who we are," Edwards said, speaking at the Thankful Baptist Church as he kicked off Half in Ten, a new effort to reduce the poverty rate by 50 percent during the next decade. "It says something about what our character is . . . the kind of country we want to live in."

The campaign is a joint project of the Center for American Progress Foundation; ACORN, which organizes activists in low-income communities; the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Coalition on Human Needs. Its aim is to advocate federal and state policies that will help people get out of poverty, including expansion of earned-income tax credits and increases in the minimum wage.

The hard-bitten reporters are keen to suspect ulterior motives, but if they just extended their reporting they could discern the difference between "pander" and "cause." It's not that hard to do. I'm proud to have supported John Edwards through the primary season until he left the race, because he actually believes in causes and is willing to advocate for them whether as a Presidential candidate or just a guy committed to lifting people out of poverty.

Major World Hunger Crisis

We get tunnel vision on superdelegates and stump speeches and credentials committees, all of which have their own level of importance. When I see a headline that millions are in danger of starvation I stop thinking about all that and pay attention.

Meteoric food and fuel prices, a slumping dollar, the demand for biofuels and a string of poor harvests have combined to abruptly multiply WFP's (the UN's World Food Program) operating costs, even as needs increase. In other words, if the number of needy people stayed constant, it would take much more money to feed them. But the number of people needing help is surging dramatically. It is what WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran calls "a perfect storm" hitting the world's hungry.

The agency last month issued an emergency appeal for money to cover a shortfall tallied at more than half a billion dollars and growing. It said it might have to reduce food rations or cut people off altogether.

The most vulnerable are people like those in Sudan, whom Joannes is struggling to feed and who rely heavily, perhaps exclusively, on the aid. But at least as alarming, WFP officials say, is the emerging community of newly needy.

There are weather-related reasons: flooding in Australia and Indonesia which lowered rice harvests. There are problems of increasing demand as the population increases. There are of course problems with rising fuel prices, which impact food production and distribution. Increases in demand for biofuels raise prices for staples like corn, as well. And there are war zones like Afghanistan, where Hamid Karzai has asked the WFP to help feed 7.5 million people, up from 5 million, a consequences of wheat prices rising 2/3 in the last year. Add this all up and you have 40 nations at risk of serious hunger out of the 121 that the WFP monitors.

The ability of individuals to feed themselves simply affects everything else. You cannot improve health care, establish a working education system, or increase economic output without food security. This is a far more urgent problem than the American financial crisis, although the plunging dollar contributes to it.

The Financial Times has more.

Governments across the developing world are scrambling to boost farm imports and restrict exports in an attempt to forestall rising food prices and social unrest [...]

Saudi Arabia cut import taxes across a range of food products on Tuesday, slashing its wheat tariff from 25 per cent to zero and reducing tariffs on poultry, dairy produce and vegetable oils.

On Monday, India scrapped tariffs on edible oil and maize and banned exports of all rice except the high-value basmati variety, while Vietnam, the world’s third biggest rice exporter, said it would cut rice exports by 11 per cent this year.

The moves mark a rapid shift away from protecting farmers, who are generally the beneficiaries of food import tariffs, towards cushioning consumers from food shortages and rising prices.

The social unrest potential is great. We have already seen "tortilla riots" in Mexico and "pasta riots" in Italy. Restricting exports is going to decimate countries in the developing world as the richer nations try to cushion the blow in their own countries. Food stocks are as low as at any time in recent memory.

This goes well beyond any political issue. Over the past week we've all received urgent calls for money from candidates for state and federal office. Poor people worldwide don't have a flashy email they can send you. Yet they need your support more than ever.

WFP's Fill the Cup program has for small amounts that can feed the hungry for a week or more. That's probably the best way to get resources into the hands of those who need them.

Global Giving has programs that feed children in Niger and India, for example.

World Hunger Year tackles community-based solutions to hunger and poverty.

CARE has a World Hunger Campaign.

Do the research, see which organization fits with your comfort level, and give. Millions of people are at risk and our financial mess has at least a little to do with it. The other thing you can do is DEMAND that your Congresscritter raise US donations to the World Food Program. Global poverty is an economic and national security issue. It's also, as John Edwards called it, the moral test of our generation.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

Pakistan has seen yet another deadly attack today.

Bombs exploded at a federal police building and in a residential area of the eastern city of Lahore on Tuesday, killing at least 15 people and wounding many more, police said.

The Federal Investigation Agency in downtown Lahore was devastated by a bomb planted near an elevator, said Mirza Mohammed Yasin, an FIA official in the capital, Islamabad. At least a dozen people died, said Mohammed Afzal, a Lahore police official.

Three more died in a second bombing at a house in an upscale residential area, Afzal said. It was not immediately clear who lived there.

The militants engages in these attacks are trying to influence the country in a way they couldn't at the ballot box. It's doubtless that their numbers are being fed by increasing uneasiness and anxiety with the economic situation in the country. As the US recession inevitably goes global, this will become yet another obstacle to global stability, particularly with respect to food and energy prices. We're going to see global poverty spike on a massive scale. Relating specifically to Pakistan, this was more likely the cause of Pervez Musharraf's electoral failure than any widespread yearning for freedom or democracy. People vote with their pocketbooks.

With consumer prices for basic goods hitting new highs in Pakistan, anxieties about the country's economy are also on the rise. After seeing five years of strong gains under the government of President Pervez Musharraf, officials are scaling back expectations for growth in the face of wrenching food and energy shortages.

The crisis has taken a severe toll on Musharraf politically -- public frustration with rising prices helped the opposition win big in parliamentary elections last month. Now those parties, the Pakistan People's Party and a faction of the Pakistan Muslim League led by Nawaz Sharif, must confront the unpleasant task of managing the crisis. Economists here say a surge of foreign investment and export growth are needed.

It's the poor and the middle class being affected. Which has led to this weak position for Musharraf, one that will be exploited by the incoming government, which plans to join forces to reinstate judges over Musharraf's protests. When or if this will happen is another story.

It is up to Mr. Musharraf to convene Parliament. On Friday, at a time when agreement between the two parties seemed somewhat distant, the president said he would call the Parliament in 10 days “if there was peace in the country.”

And again we see the attacks inside Pakistan as something Musharraf needs to survive politically. Could this be why the US government, which is nominally backing Musharraf's continued hold on power, is funding tribal militias who have questionable allegiances?

The outpost's defenders belonged to Pakistan's Frontier Corps, an 85,000-member tribal militia that, according to the latest Pentagon budget, is set to receive up to $75 million in training and equipment this year, the first injection of what could be more than $400 million to be delivered over the next several years. Beyond this, little is known about the plan, the details of which remain classified. As reported by the New York Times, a 40-page secret document called "Plan for Training the Frontier Corps" is currently being circulated at the U.S. Central Command, awaiting final approval by its commander, Admiral William J. Fallon, and other senior defense officials. The use of the Frontier Corps in the fight against Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan augurs a new approach to dealing with rising Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan's tribal region. Like U.S. plans to fund it, the Frontier Corps has largely escaped scrutiny, but there are questions about its allegiances, competence, and suitability to the proposed mission. Support for tribal militias has become a centerpiece of the U.S. strategy in Iraq, one that carries with it inherent risks in terms of inadvertently backing potential enemies in the pursuit of short-term security goals. Supporting the Frontier Corps is similarly dicey.

My feeling is that trying to pursue an "Anbar Awakening" inside the frontier areas is simply, in the short term, pushing the Taliban/militant forces deeper inside Pakistan. Where they plot and carry out more attacks, giving Musharraf more of a reason to crack down and maybe impose martial law again. I could be wrong, but it does seem that Musharraf and the militants are mutually sustaining. In the long term, bolstering the Frontier Corps seems to be to be lunacy, ripe for blowback, and simply horrendous policy.

Who's The Cult Leader, Now?

This "Obama is a cult" thing is starting to fly around in the media, and yet things like this go virtually unnoticed:

Few visitors will venture far from the usual sites to see a spectacular exhibit -- just a short walk from the Mall -- that so very much captures the spirit, the essence, the greatness of this shining city on a hill.

Yes, it's the beautifully designed photo homage to one of our nation's leaders, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson. The photo exhibit is boldly and proudly displayed in the lobby of HUD's headquarters building, itself a dreadful gray relic of Great Society architecture.

Tour groups need not even go through the inviting metal detectors to admire 20 large, color photographs of the secretary, each about 2 feet by 3 feet. No fewer than five of them feature Jackson with President Bush-- in the Rose Garden, in the Oval Office, chatting together, coming down the steps at the Capitol.

The photographs cover an entire wall of the lobby as you enter, passing two other photos, the smaller official ones, of Bush and his old buddy from Texas days, side by side to greet you.

I mean, we have a White House Chief of Staff who has a wall collection of pictures of Bush's HANDS at key moments in his life.

And we're talking about some OTHER politician leading a cult?

This, of course, is an example of the attacks we're going to start seeing with regularity if Obama, as presumed, becomes the nominee. We'll see more baseless insanity masquerading as analysis like this:

Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics.

Shorter National Review writer - I knew someone who knew someone who was part black and part Jewish, therefore Obama is a Communist!!!1! Almost as good as there was a poet from Hawaii named Frank who joined the Communist Party at some point, therefore...

These stories aren't meant to convince anybody, they serve as a backdrop. It manifests itself when the right finds a bill or some policy paper that they can elevate into a full-fledged hissy fit, as they are now doing in a very off-the-radar-screen kind of way:

It isn't a high-profile bill, but the Global Poverty Act has lit up the conservative blogosphere, and even Rush Limbaugh has gotten into the act.

Quietly approved by the House of Representatives last fall with bipartisan support, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., would require the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to help reduce extreme global poverty.

Conservative critics, including Limbaugh, Tony Perkins — who heads the Family Research Council — and others, claim that the measure would cost U.S. taxpayers $845 billion over the next dozen or so years. They also charge that it would tie the United States to the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which, among others things, calls for banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying the Kyoto global-warming treaty, the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Convention on Biological Diversity [...]

Smith says there's no link and points out that there's no additional spending mandated in his bill.

He said the attacks weren't aimed at him but at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, whom he recruited last year to be the bill's chief Senate sponsor. Smith is the chairman of the Obama campaign in Washington state.

Limbaugh, according to a transcript of his radio show, last week called the bill an effort to "soak U.S. taxpayers again to fund global, liberal feel-good garbage."

So it's not enough that (insert liberal here) will steal our hard-earned money and give it to the undeserving poor in this country, it's now that (insert liberal here) will steal our hard-earned money and give it to the undeserving poor all over the world. And with the background of "Obama is a Communist" from the far right, and probably worse from various email forwards and other sludge, the pieces fit together. Obama wants to realize Che's vision and install one world government to destroy the American way of life and make us all wear burqas, even the men, while the lucky duckies in Benin live it up with our cash.

(By the way, isn't Bush spending a week in Africa, the last place where he can show his face, to tout these kind of "handouts" like investment in decent medical care to stop the spread of AIDS and malaria?)

The progenitor of this "Obama is the Communist Robin Hood" attack that ties it up all in a bow is the same guy who's been pushing many of the far-right attacks on Obama, including the one that he knew some Communist named Frank in Hawaii.

The dustup began last week when Cliff Kincaid, a columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org), a conservative news-media watchdog organization, dismissed the bill and linked it to an effort by Democrats to burnish Obama's legislative credentials. His original column was widely distributed on Web sites ranging from www.fishingbuddy.com to www.capitolhillcoffeehouse.com.

On Wednesday, Kincaid ratcheted up his criticism.

"This is how the Washington game of spending more of your money works," he wrote. "This is a budget buster that siphons your hard-earned tax dollars to the U.N. and the rest of the world."

This guy is paid, and probably very well, by the wingnut noise machine to put these things out there into the ether and then find something to make the ridiculous sound plausible.

In fact, if there's any group that characterizes the behavior of a cult - moving in lockstep, making up wild fantasy stories that they will themselves and others into believing, ignoring mountains of evidence to arrive at their conclusions - it's the wingnut welfare crowd. Of course, that's the cult of the "I-Know-Where-My-Bread-Is-Buttered."

Getting By In America

So the posting was light today because I was doing my Christmastime good deed, pitching in on a food drive for needy families in South Central L.A. Every year the nonprofit One Voice reaches about 2,500 families in the area with a holiday food basket.

And this year, that bounty is apparently more needed than ever, because I keep hearing about epic demand at our nation's food banks. For too many, it is a struggle to survive without help in America. Costs are rising faster than wages, despite an unemployment rate that doesn't count people who've stopped looking for work jobs are tight and the underground economy isn't paying the bills, and the mortgage crisis is raising rents all over the country as demand increases. Donations are not keeping up with need, either.

Where there used to be thriving suburbs there are now tent cities.

Between railroad tracks and beneath the roar of departing planes sits "tent city," a terminus for homeless people. It is not, as might be expected, in a blighted city center, but in the once-booming suburbia of Southern California.

The noisy, dusty camp sprang up in July with 20 residents and now numbers 200 people, including several children, growing as this region east of Los Angeles has been hit by the U.S. housing crisis.

The unraveling of the region known as the Inland Empire reads like a 21st century version of "The Grapes of Wrath," John Steinbeck's novel about families driven from their lands by the Great Depression.

As more families throw in the towel and head to foreclosure here and across the nation, the social costs of collapse are adding up in the form of higher rates of homelessness, crime and even disease.

I don't think people have an understanding of how bad it is out there. There was a house a few months back that was being transported here in Los Angeles, and it fell off the truck on the 101 and stayed there for a couple weeks. People started living in it. There are families who are finding it easier to turn in their keys and walk away from their homes. It's obscenely easy to become invisible in America, whether you're desperately poor or even middle class. And there's a fine line between ignorance and a flat-out lack of compassion. And yes, in many ways the U.S. economy is built that way.

The entire American economy is based on making people feel bad about themselves, making them feel poor, ugly, sick, helpless, stupid, inadequate and then offering to sell them something to relieve the pain of rejection and failure.

It's based on making them afraid, too. Of losing the aforementioned house/health insurance/paycheck and of the myriad of boogymen under our collective beds. You think we don't have national health care because we can't do it or can't afford it? We don't have national health care because if we did, quitting your job and moving on to something better or even to the unknown wouldn't be so fucking terrifying. Some American dream, huh?

Meanwhile, as the poor are shunted aside, the rich are feted. Circuit City, perhaps the biggest bastards in the business world, who fired all their workers who made any kind of decent wage and hired neophytes for less, couldn't be losing more money if they tried. Nobody wants to go to an electronics store where nobody has a clue what they're doing. Turns out the management tried to hire back their informed employees to no avail. And all this loss for their shareholders hasn't hurt the suits a bit.

We all know what happens when you mess up in the dog eat dog world of big business -- you get retention awards (that's because your stock options aren't worth anything). The Post reports that Circuit City's executive vice-presidents will get retention awards of $1 million each. That's 35 years worth of pay for one of sales clerks who earned $14 an hour. And that's just the bonus.

This touching account of Santa Claus visiting Circuit City's executive suites belonged on the front page of the Post and every other newspaper. What better way to get in the Christmas spirit?

America is on a bad track and the suits on Wall Street can't seem to understand why. The gap between rich and poor is unreal, and the media isn't covering any kind of real labor and class issues that would put this in front of people's eyes. As a result people feel almost completely alone.

Getting By In George Bush's America

I mentioned before that the Census Bureau released a report showing that the ranks of the uninsured have risen, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population. Also in the report was news that the nation's poverty rate has gone down for the first time in the history of this Administration.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent — were living in poverty last year. That’s down from 12.6 percent in 2005.

The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.

36 and a half million Americans are still a lot of people, and what's not remarked upon is that the average income in 2005 is still below that in 2000. And there are still structural issues that imperil both the working poor and middle-class Americans. Home prices have seen their steepest drop in 20 years and foreclosures are up 93% from the same point last year. The housing market has propped up the economy in many areas, and eventually this will result in less homes being built, hurting the construction sector, one of the few providing low-skilled workers with decent jobs. This was eminently predictable, and the new restrictions on bankruptcy protection really make it hard on those foreclosed upon to bounce back. Yet the Federal Reserve and the financial services industry saw fit to bail out rich hedge fund managers to stabilize the global economy by adding hundreds of billions in liquidity, which will give them every reason to do even more harm to the markets in the knowledge that they'll be bailed out down the road. And it only delayed something inevitable; stocks fell precipitously today.

There are still structural problems with this economy. While no-bid contracts proliferate and politicians conspire with big business to take profits out of the public treasury, they turn a blind eye to the real struggles working men and women face every day. We have an entire large American city being just flat-out neglected, only paid attention to on days like tomorrow's tragic anniversary. While infrastructure sits crumbling, while the Gulf Coast goes un-rebuilt, while social spending is meager, historically so compared to the rest of the world, while stratification between rich and poor continues to skyrocket, citing a statistic that a few more people are making a bit more than $20,000 a year as opposed to less seems to be to be irrelevant.

This bit of CW from the original article about the poverty drop is telling:

Poverty has not been a big issue in the campaign, and political scientists said they doubted the new numbers would change that.

“The poor are politically mute,” said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “What rational politician would listen to the poor? They don’t vote, they don’t write checks, why care?”

Democrat John Edwards has made fighting poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. But, Jacobs noted, “He’s struggling to raise money and he’s lagging in the polls.”

Those with the voice set the agenda. That's still the case today, and anyone who advocates for them is shouted down. They'll cite a few statistics to ignore the plight of 36 million people who go to bed hungry. It's sickening.

The Media Tips Its Own Hand About John Edwards

This revealing story by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic flat-out tells you how the media puts its thumbs on the scale when it comes to Presidential candidates.

Why doesn't John Edwards's hair equal Mitt Romney's face paint?

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.

Let's put aside the moronic idea that you can only express sympathy for the poor if you ARE poor. It's a thuddingly simple-minded argument that is almost unworthy of debate, if it wasn't coming from the media elite.

But the press has spent three months writing "Wow, I can't believe that Edwards haircut story has legs," while continuing to write about it. This is completely reminiscent of the way the press Heathers showed open contempt for Al Gore in 2000 or Howard Dean in 2004. They don't like people who aren't part of their club, and they're quite willing to go the extra mile in assuring that they will be knocked down a peg. And alternative media is simply not large enough to offer much of a counterweight. So this usually works. Edwards is now fourth in New Hampshire and slipping nationally as well. It sounds like a conspiracy theory to suggest that the media manipulates the narrative to favor candidates they like and punish candidates they hate. But this isn't just me saying it; this is a member of the press corps telling you "a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards." And he uses the caveat of "fairly or unfairly." I've got news for you, it's unfair. Wholly and completely.

The blog reactions to this are excellent. LGM:

Granting that Ambinder isn't quite endorsing it, I'm amazed that anyone can see the question of whether or not reporters should use their reporting not to inform readers but to irresponsibly indulge their petty superficial prejudices about the individual candidates as a fairly debatable proposition. This open press corps contempt for Gore defined campaign 2000, and personally I think there are a lot of dead soldiers and Iraqis who think that what a president will actually do in office is more important that his or her suits and haircuts.

Digby:

Now, I am not especially surprised that the press corps doesn't like John Edwards. Many of these people probably didn't like guys like him in high school either and one thing we know about the political press corps is that they have never matured beyond the 11th grade. (See: chilean bass stupidity.) But I have to ask, once again, just who in the hell these people think they are and why they think they are allowed to pick our candidates for us based upon their own "feelings" about them? I don't recall electing them to anything. (But, hey, maybe we should just poll the kewl kidz and find out which candidate they "like, totally, like" and we can cancel the election and save a lot of time and money.)

This is exactly this kind of thing that makes people like me laugh when I get lectured by professional journalists about "objectivity" and "ethics." At least I put my political biases up front. These phonies hide behind a veil of journalistic conventions so they can exercise their psychologically stunted desire to stick it to the BMOC, or the dork or whoever these catty little gossips want to skewer for their own pleasure that day. Please, please, no more hand-wringing sanctimony from reporters about the undisciplined, unethical blogosphere. Their glass houses are lying in shards all around their feet.

There is a legitimate question to be asked about why John Edwards' approach to the issue of poverty isn't exciting the poor. In fact, other Presidential candidates are trying to exploit it on the basis of authenticity. Here's what I think is going on. The fact that our politics have been so cynically manipulated by a group of unelected tastemakers, I would say, offers the explanation as to why authenticity, an ephemeral and impossible-to-read emotion, is seen to matter so much. We've been told for so long that every word out of a politician's mouth is "political," that there is no such thing as conviction, that of course voters believe that candidates are "telling me what I want to hear." This can even fool some of the best among us. And who creates this impression? An unelected, unaccountable media elite, who operates from the biases of claass and privilege, who is immediately skeptical of anyone who doesn't hew to the corporate centrist Beltway line, and who will ACTIVELY SUBVERT them through their role as a filter between politicians and the people.

John Edwards announced his campaign for President in New Orleans, created a program in Eastern North Carolina to help struggling kids get through college, goes on a tour of poverty-stricken communities that no other national leaders will visit, talks about economic fairness and responsible school integration and equality of opportunity and all sorts of uniquely American ideas enshrined in our core values. This is in a time when practically nobody else appears to give a damn about growing inequality which is the greatest threat to our economic security. And the media Heathers look at this and sniff and turn up their noses because they might have to go to those depressed areas to cover him and it's all so unseemly. They stopped covering him during the 2004 Vice Presidential campaign because he spoke in too many small towns and rural areas. They don't like him and they don't want him to be President. There's no better reason to support him.

Did you know that Edwards has had 3 suspicious packages delivered to his campaign offices already this year? Of course you didn't, Edwards is mean and uncouth and nobody likes him. Did you know about his appearance in Roanoke yesterday? Why would I, it wasn't in the New York Times and anyway he paid too much for a haircut.

The media is laying down a guantlet that John Edwards is not "their" candidate. He'll come in and trash the place, and it's not his place. That's the small-mindedness of our press corps, and also it speaks to their belief in their own power, which they choose not to use to hold elected officials accountable, but to play a giant game of winners and losers based on who's most likely to sit next to them in the lunchroom. The media, the Beltway punditocracy in particular, has not learned one iota the lessons of 2000, and will continue to play this high-school crap FOREVER, until their stature dwindles to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. It would be good to let them know that you don't care for this kind of garbage, that as an American you wish to make your electoral choices on the merits and not through their filter. We've grown up since high school. The media hasn't.

UPDATE: Pardon me, but fuck the fucking media.

Elizabeth Edwards has just written in to Slate to slam the online mag's chief political reporter, John Dickerson, for insinuating that she and John Edwards are using her cancer in an ad for political gain.

She was responding to a Dickerson piece in Slate today bearing this intriguing subhed: "A new ad exploits the suffering of the Edwards family. But that's okay."

Apparently Elizabeth Edwards saying in an ad that John is a man who can "stare the worst in the face and not blink" means he's inauthentically exploiting his wife's cancer. What kind of twisted people are these? Why couldn't that be the events of 9-11, for example, which is exactly how they would attribute it to Rudy Giuliani no matter what personal tragedies have befallen him?

Check the link to see Elizabeth's repsonse. I'm beyond enraged to see good people being kneecapped for no good reason. We have to get their backs.

Well, Well, Well

Mitt Romney's been to the beauty salon too. And he charged his campaign for it.

Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as “a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men’s grooming and spa services.”

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments — actually two separate $150 charges — were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif.

In an age where our politicians are actors, these are legitimate campaign expenses, actually. It's just that Romney - who used the John Edwards haircut situation repeatedly as a device for mockery - is just the rankest of hypocrites here. With the difference, of course, being that Edwards talks about and shows concern for poverty while being rich, while Romney doesn't give a crap about the poor while being rich, which apparently is more "consistent."

Can't wait for Mike Huckabee to unfurl his line about how "the government is spending money like Mitt Romney in a beauty shop."

UPDATE: Ezra:

To say this explicitly, it's okay to be rich if you act rich. The amount of flak Edwards is getting for being both wealthy and concerned with the working class versus the amount of criticism Giuliani and Romney are getting for being uber-rich and utterly unconcerned with issue of class and wage fairness is telling. The press doesn't care if you're loaded and out-of-touch, or self-interested. But to both make a lot of money and think other people should make relatively more money? Why, that's-that's-that's-that's hypocrisy* is what that is!

Exactly right. And the media can only see it that way because THEY are part of the same privileged class, or they at least like to think of themselves that way. This Leslie Wayne from the New York Times is the beat reporter for John Edwards, she writes the bulk of Edwards stories for the paper, and she flat-out doesn't like him. She writes paragraphs like this:

Mr. Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, a topic that stands in sharp contrast to his own $30 million net worth and which set him up for ridicule when it became public that he had paid $400 for a haircut.

There's actually no contrast there. You can have a net worth of $30 million dollars and care about people who don't make $30 million dollars. In fact, you can set up organizations and give speeches and raise awareness to promote the goal of allowing people who don't have $30 million dollars the opportunities to lead a contented life. That isn't a contrast whatsoever. Why does Leslie Wayne hate people with money who actually want to allow the unwashed masses the same opportunity? Her latest article on Edwards' antipoverty tour covers it strictly from a political perspective, as if he's somehow pimping poor people to gather votes (because everyone knows that the way to gain power in America is to talk about the poor, right?)

Here's a roundup of what Edwards is actually DOING, without the biases inherent in the corporate media reporting.

The Edwards Poverty Tour

This is a damn good idea:

John Edwards plans to visit parts of the country beset by poverty, a leading issue in his Democratic presidential campaign.

Edwards' three-day swing on his "Road to One America" tour will take him through New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and eight other cities and eight states, beginning July 16.

The former North Carolina senator said the makeup of the poor has changed in the past 40 years to include a wide range of ages and a variety of ethnic and regional backgrounds.

"Many are hardworking men and women with full-time jobs who are still struggling to make ends meet. And their numbers are growing," he said.

The President has to be the President of the entire country, and yet we have large swaths of the population who are denied access to the national conversation. It's not strategically wise to visit economically depressed areas. Those people can't donate money to your campaign, they can't be expected to vote in large numbers. It's just the RIGHT THING TO DO. And John Edwards in 2008 is motivated by what's right.

A New Generation of Progressive Leadership

Democrats and particularly bloggers like to take the piss out of Barack Obama and John Edwards and the rest of our slate of Democratic Presidential candidates a lot; I've joined them. But it's undeniable that we're seeing a completely different dynamic in 2007 that we saw in 2003 leading up to the primaries. Then, centrist pro-gun fiscally conservative Howard Dean was seen as a wild-eyed liberal just to the left of Karl Marx. The range of topics was extremely narrow, and the solutions expressed even narrower. Today, we see a broad progressive agenda espoused by everyone - even Hillary Clinton - and practically everyone in this race has pitched their message in a more progressive way than even Dean. (OK, not Biden, but he represents the past)

The candidates' liberal chorus about the war in Iraq, gay rights, healthcare and labor issues was a testament to the Democratic left wing's growing strength since the Republican rout in the 2006 midterm election.

The White House hopefuls called for broad healthcare reform. All embraced allowing gays to serve in the military, a step to the left of President Clinton's policy of "don't ask, don't tell."

The rival candidates also paid homage to their party's deep antiwar sentiment by competing for the mantle of being the most strongly opposed to the war in Iraq [...]

At a time when many Republicans are dissatisfied with their presidential candidates, the mood at the twin forums illustrated the energy and high hopes coursing through liberal ranks.

"There's enthusiasm and optimism that someone in this room will be elected president," said Wayne Holland Jr., head of the Utah Democratic Party who attended the conference of liberal activists organized by the Campaign for America's Future. "There's a confidence I've never seen."

We begged, pleaded, and cajoled Democrats to emphasize a true politics of contrast in 2004 and 2006. We urged them to be bold and not passive or cautious. Now we're just starting to see the fruits of that, at least on the campaign trail (in Congress is another story, though I think they're beginning to get the message as well). People in this country are starving for change and leadership; that's why they're so disgusted with Congress right now, because it appears unwilling or unable to challenge George Bush.

But candidates on the stump ARE offering a leadership agenda. Barack Obama offered one of the boldest good government proposals in recent memory today, and he framed it in terms of a regrettable American past that we are slipping into again.

As factories multiplied and profits grew, the winnings of the new economy became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad tycoons and oil magnates.

It was known as the Gilded Age, and it was made possible by a government that played along. From the politicians in Washington to the big city machines, a vast system of payoffs and patronage, scandal and corruption kept power in the hands of the few while the workers who streamed into the new factories found it harder and harder to earn a decent wage or work in a safe environment or get a day off once in awhile.
The importance of this cannot be overstated. Preventing and even discouraging partipation in the political system are important tools of the entrenched interests in society. If people can't or won't change the system, the system becomes a tool for preserving injustice instead of eradicating it [...]

From Jack Abramoff to Tom Delay, from briberies to indictments, the scandals that have plagued Washington over the last few years have been too numerous to recall.

But their most troubling aspect goes far beyond the headlines that focus on the culprits and their crimes. It's an entire culture in Washington – some of it legal, some of it not – that allows this to happen. Because what's most outrageous is not the morally offensive conduct on behalf of these lobbyists and legislators, but the morally offensive laws and decisions that get made as a result.

The specific policies are numerous, but they include banning political appointees from working on anything related to their prior employer, ending no-bid contracting abuse, banning gifts to executive branch employees, enforcing the Hatch Act which bans government officials from engaging in partisan activities, ELMINATING SIGNING STATEMENTS, allowing for public comment on all bills before signage, conducting regulatory business and federal earmarking in public, and more. Obama is a candidate with a message of changing our politics, and all of these proposals, many of which he advocated before coming to Washington, all get at a drastic change from the tarnished legacy of the Bush era and a restoration of the principles of good government and respect for the Constitution. Even Ralph Nader's old group gave it a thumbs-up. You can see the speech he gave here.

We have another Presidential candidate, John Edwards, who is the first since Lyndon Johnson, really, to talk about the shame of poverty in America and advocate for those voiceless poor who have no access to the levers of power. Because he happens to be wealthy and wants to be President so he can do something about this issue, he takes a lot of heat from a clueless media, like this story today in the New York Times, alleging that Edwards' anti-poverty nonprofit was somehow used for nefarious purposes. Never mind the fact that The Times never bothered to talk to any poor people that were helped by Edwards' nonprofit. If you just look at what the Paper of Record thinks is dastardly - going abroad to talk with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and criss-crossing the country helping build unions and talking about poverty - it doesn't seem all that untoward. In fact, it seems pretty impressive:

Indeed, this all seems like an extremely successful venture. Edwards raised some money to fight poverty. He used a certain amount of that money to finance his own pre-presidential campaigning, which was entirely focused on poverty reduction. During that campaigning, he spent an enormous amount of time...talking about poverty, and restoring its place in the national political discussion. Given that the sum of money we're talking about is $1.3 million, how has this not been an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center? Granted, among its methods were to enable a national politician to continually raise the issue's profile through his personal advocacy, but isn't that what folks donating to a John Edwards poverty center were expecting? And hasn't Edwards -- who still brings up poverty in his speeches, just released a book on the subject, and whose efforts spurred Matt Bai to write a New York Times Magazine cover story on the reemergence of the issue in the national political discourse -- proven very, very effective? If you care about poverty, this seems like $1.3 million well spent.

It's clear to me from these examples that we have a new generation of progressive leadership, one that is understanding that in a dangerous world, in the aftermath of a disastrous Presidency, we cannot be timid, we cannot be cowed, we must be strong and principled and tell the nation exactly how we can change this country and make an impact on people's lives. I'll leave the last word to E.J. Dionne, who wrote this admirable piece today:

cliches die hard, so you hear such 20-year-old questions as: "Are Democrats moving too far to the left?" or "Will Democrats abandon the center?"

This approach is about abstractions, not concrete political problems, and it misses the dynamic in American public life, which is the move away from the right and a discrediting of the conservative era. The political "center" of today is not where the "center" was even five years ago.

That's why every leading Democratic candidate for president chose to appear at this week's "Take Back America" conference organized by the Campaign for America's Future, the leading group on the party's progressive end [...]

None of this means that the country would replace the fiercely ideological politics of the right with strident leftism. On the contrary, the reaction against conservatism is being fed by two streams -- a move left by one part of the electorate, and a frustration with ideological politics altogether by another part.

It's why New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, flirting with an independent run for the presidency while denying he's doing so, hit a responsive chord when he declared this week that "good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology."

But the "good ideas" that voters are demanding mostly have to do with problems that have been framed by the left, not the right: the need to disengage from Iraq, to create health security, to ease economic inequalities. It's time to update our sense of where the political center lies and to adjust our view of "the left" accordingly.

The local Air America station has a new tagline: "Progressive, the new mainstream." I'm beginning to think that they're right.

Zoellick (you know, like Zelig)

So Robert Zoellick will replace Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank, and while the initial reaction is certainly more favorable than it was toward his predecessor, well... he's still a Bush appointee, and as such he still has a cozy relationship with big business:

Some groups involved in promoting global health worry about Zoellick's free-market bent and his past support for trade agreements that critics viewed as favoring large pharmaceutical companies.

"It's impossible to imagine the same Zoellick who carried water" for the large pharmaceutical companies "being the kind of advocate African ministers of health need in order to expand their investments in salaries for doctors and nurses," said Asia Russell, director of international policy for Health GAP, which stands for (Global Access Project).

It really tells you something about how much George Bush values competence when the best that can be said about one of his nominees is that AT LEAST they're only ideological.

The LA Times and the Working Class

I have a conflicted relationship with the LA Times. On the one hand, they still do a stellar job covering international news; I would put the paper's Iraq reporting up with any other news organization in the world. But on the editorial side, the paper has taken up the neoliberal consensus with a vengeance, and turns a blind eye to vital issues to this community, like inequality and poverty. Nancy Cleeland, an excellent writer, has decided to leave the paper for just this reason:

It's awkward to criticize an old friend, which I still consider the Times to be, but I think the question of how mainstream journalists deal with the working class is important and deserves debate. There may be no better setting in which to examine the issue: The Los Angeles region is defined by gaping income disparities and an enormous pool of low-wage immigrant workers, many of whom are pulled north by lousy, unstable jobs. It's also home to one of the most active and creative labor federations in the country. But you wouldn't know any of that from reading a typical issue of the L.A. Times, in print or online. Increasingly anti-union in its editorial policy, and celebrity -- and crime-focused in its news coverage, it ignores the economic discontent that is clearly reflected in ethnic publications such as La Opinion.

Of course, I realize that revenues are plummeting and newsroom staffs are being cut across the country. But even in these tough financial times, it's possible to shift priorities to make Southern California's largest newspaper more relevant to the bulk of people who live here. Here's one idea: Instead of hiring a "celebrity justice reporter," now being sought for the Times website, why not develop a beat on economic justice? It might interest some of the millions of workers who draw hourly wages and are being squeezed by soaring rents, health care costs and debt loads.

Go read the whole thing, this is an important article. You would think that it would be easier and more cost-effective for the Times to cover what's happening in its own backyard. Of course, the Times was first part of a corporate-owned media collective, the Tribune Corporation, and now Sam Zell, a multi-millionaire. The top editors and senior staff aren't affected by the real issues impacting working people, and it shows in where they place their emphasis.

I remembered the workers who killed chickens, made bagged salads, packed frozen seafood, installed closet organizers, picked through recycled garbage, and manufactured foam cups and containers. They were injured from working too fast, fired for speaking up, powerless, invisible. I saw that their impact on all of us who live in the region is huge.

Now, like hundreds of other mid-career journalists who are walking away from media institutions across the country, I'm looking for other ways to tell the stories I care about. At the same time, the world of online news is maturing, looking for depth and context. I think the timing couldn't be better.

I would suggest that Cleeland would always be welcome on the blogosphere. There is a market for understanding the complex issues of class and inequality.

UPDATE: I would add that proof of the LA Times' relationship to the poor can be easily gleaned in this BS hit piece on John Edwards by Jonah Goldberg, someone who doesn't live in California but is hired to write lazy smear jobs based on two-week old stories without merit.