The Bullock Pulpit: Calculated musings of a pragmatic idealist

A reality check, and the surprising importance of nut paste

I was watching The Weather Channel this morning, wondering if rain would mess up my plans for tonight, when an international weather update stopped me in my tracks.  The piece was on the relentless drought in Somalia, and the resulting famine and the displacement of millions of Somalis.  The story struck a chord with me.  A week-long heat wave followed by thunderstorms suddenly didn't seem like such a big deal, and I was prompted to seek out more information, because I'm nerdy like that.

Last week, famine was officially declared by the United Nations in two regions of southern Somalia. This is the first time a famine has been declared since 2000, in Ethiopia, and the first time it's been declared in Somalia since 1991, which is also the year in which civil war began, effectively destroying the central government, which has not been reestablished.  Famine is declared after certain criteria are met: at least 20% of households in an area face extreme food shortages; acute malnutrition rates among children exceed 30%; and the daily death rate exceeds two people per 10,000 people (as of last week, children were dying at a rate of six per 10,000 per day) Other factors considered in the Somalia declaration included large-scale displacement, widespread poverty, and disease outbreaks.  In fact, in some areas of Somalia, over half the population is malnourished. Declaration of famine doesn’t carry any binding obligations on the UN or member states, but it does serve to focus global attention on the problem.

The Islamist militant groups who run Somalia have traditionally prohibited aid from reaching much of the country, and a loosening of this ban earlier this week has the UN, World Health Organization, and other agencies scrambling to assemble the logistics of delivering food aid to hundreds of thousands of Somalis. This morning, the first shipment of nutritional supplements arrived in Somalia, where local humanitarian organizations will distribute it into the countryside.  Today's 10-ton delivery of peanut-based nutritional paste (which is called Plumpy'nut, by the way) is expected to feed 3500 children for one month, which  is nowhere near enough, but hopefully the militants will continue to stay out of the way of further humanitarian aid.

Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the United States would give $28 million in aid to Somalia, on top of the more than $431 million in food and other emergency assistance it has provided this year to the eastern Horn of Africa.  The financial troubles of the United States have not yet stripped us of our title as the world's aid provider in chief.  There are those that will say that we need to take care of our own before giving money to other countries that can't take care of themselves.  While we certainly shouldn't turn our backs on the needy in our own back yards (I'm looking at YOU, John Boehner) our crises pale in comparison to the drought and famine that threatens millions in the Horn of Africa.  The problems in Somalia can't be solved with tons of Plumpy'nut, but if it can keep children alive, I say let's buy as much as we can and ship it over.

Seriously, do a Google search for "Somalia famine" today.  I've learned a lot today about a part of the world that gets scant attention, and needs as much of it as it can get.

Not another blog about the debt ceiling or the deficit

I'm on a plane returning to Chicago from Las Vegas as I write this.  I had gone to see a band, meet up with friends, and get away from the "real world" for a couple days. But first thing Saturday morning, breaking news spread like wildfire throughout Twitter, Facebook, and the pool area at the Palms hotel. Not the debt crisis meeting between Democratic and Republican leaders at the White House, but the death of singer Amy Winehouse.  The 27-year old was found dead on Saturday in the bedroom of her London home.  As of now, no cause of death has been released, but most people familiar with her history of drug and alcohol abuse are assuming that they contributed in some way to her demise.

Why should we care about the untimely death of a troubled celebrity?  The short answer is simply that no one should die at the age of 27.  Much of the reaction on social media was of frustration that she could not be successfully treated for her addictions, or sadness at the potential that will forever remain unfulfilled.  But there was also a good amount of "who cares?", "just another irresponsible celebrity", or "why is this even news?".  I'm not suggesting that we should mourn Amy as we would mourn the loss of a family member.  But I am suggesting that her death is worth a moment of pause and perspective. 

Amy Winehouse was a tremendously gifted singer and songwriter, with a style influenced heavily by 50s and 60s jazz and soul.  Yet no amount of talent, fame, or money could free her from the grip of drug and alcohol addiction. No intervention by loved ones could loosen the hold that these substances had taken on her brain.  This type of personal demon transcends political party, religious affiliation, and social belief.  It is part of the human condition, and as we are all humans - and I assume you are, if you are reading this - we should all care.   Not because Amy was a celebrity, a frequent gossip rag target, or a "train wreck", but because she was human.  One of us.

Untimely death certainly isn't a fate exclusive to the famous and infamous, although they tend to get the most press.  Just as young musicians should not lose their lives to drugs, neighborhood residents should not be felled by stray bullets, entire families should not be killed by drunk drivers, and youth camp attendees should not be taken down by crazed gunmen.  Even if our own lives are not directly affected by these deaths, each represents a lost loved one and lost potential, and serves as a reminder that there is a huge world outside of the largely make-believe political universe that consumes many of us these days.  Democrat or Republican, Catholic or atheist, wealthy or just scraping by, ultimately, we're all in this together.  I have spent hours discussing and posting about partisan politics.  I can afford a few moments to think about the fragility of life and how lucky we are to even be on this earth.  I took one such moment on Friday, following the news of the double tragedies in Norway, and I take another now to remember a young woman whose music, and internal struggles, touched millions.

Rest in peace, Amy Winehouse.  You and your beautiful voice will be missed.

 

EMILY's List: Make sure women's health care is considered basic health care

By Congresswoman Chellie Pingree on 07/20/2011 @ 03:29 PM

via emilyslist.org

I may as well repost another blog that says what I'd like to say. The idea of coverage for women's health care makes total sense, and for those who bitch and moan about cost, it SAVES money in the long run.

Journalists should be hackers - but target the open web, not private phones | openDemocracy

The term ‘hacker’ warrants re-examining in light of the unravelling News of the World scandal. The circle within which my journalistic persona travels is that of hack/hackers. I am part hacker. I am a data journalism advocate for a developer platform called ScraperWiki. And I am very concerned about how this tumultuous time in journalism history will define the word ‘hack’ and all its related synonyms.

via www.opendemocracy.net

I was working earlier this week on a blog about the phone hacking scandal in Britain, but the boiling heat was making writing coherently very difficult. Then I found this gem, which discusses "hacking" better than I ever could. Enjoy!!

I can't believe I'm writing about this AGAIN

It's been over a week since my first debt ceiling/deficit blog, and Congress is no closer to an agreement on how to handle either one, while the deadline to raise the debt ceiling looms ever closer.  Some will say that the fault lies on both sides of the aisle.  Um, no. At this point, the responsibility is all Republican.  Why do I say that?  Because they control the House, and they know perfectly well that the plans they have come up with will never pass the Senate.  They have not lifted a finger to negotiate a bill that will actually pass both houses and make it to the President's desk, even after the President put cuts to entitlement programs on the table last week.  GOP lawmakers have come up with deficit reductions plans at varying levels of silly, but they all have one thing in common: no additional taxes.  It's become the mantra of the Republican Party, just as "I'm not sharing" is the mantra of 3-year olds playing in a sandbox. 

If the choices are - and I'm not saying these are black and white options, but bear with me for a second - to take from the rich or to take from the needy, in what universe is the right answer to take from the needy?  Is it the right answer because "the rich create jobs"?  News flash; the rich aren't creating jobs. They're investing the money that they're not paying in taxes, while the poor, disabled, and elderly are looking at having benefits cut...while many of then are still looking for those mythical jobs.   

The GOP's latest ridiculous idea, headed to a House vote today, is the Tea Party-backed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" plan, which involves both deep budget cuts (actually, the promise of future cuts beginning next fiscal year) and federal spending caps, as well as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution (which, by the way, requires a two-thirds majority in both houses for passage). Once passed, the bill would then allow the president to raise the debt limit by $2.5 trillion in three installments this year.   It's very convenient for Republicans, as it absolves them of direct responsibility for raising the debt ceiling, while giving them what they cherish most (cue the mantra).  It isn't likely to pass the Senate, and even if it does, President Obama vows to veto it.  Even some Republicans admit that the plan will likely not work as written, since it relies on future Congresses to follow through, and the balanced-budget amendment requires state ratification.   But House Speaker Boehner is hoping that by at least putting the plan to a vote, he can build enough goodwill among the Tea Party contingent so that a compromise plan can be pushed through before the deadline.

Many Republicans in Congress are still pooh-poohing the importance of raising the debt ceiling, claiming that Democrats are causing a furor about nothing, but saying they'll humor the President and go along with raising the debt ceiling as long as there is no increase in taxes. Mitch McConnell believes that avoiding default is important, but not necessarily for the solvency of the country.  He said last week that default could "destroy the GOP brand", as it will give Democrats a reason to pin the blame for a bad economy on the GOP heading into election season.  So for McConnell, it's not about the repercussions for the national economy, it's about the repercussions for the Republican party.  But in a sense, he's is correct.  If a debt ceiling deal doesn't get done, and the US goes into default in the name of protecting the wealthiest Americans, we will know exactly whom to blame, thanks to the mantra that could potentially drive the country straight into the ground.

News of the Ridiculous: the Light Bulb Edition

Congress was busy yesterday.  Working on a jobs bill or deficit reduction plan?  Nope.  Saving the energy-efficient light bulb.  Nancy Pelosi rallied the Democrats to this cause, and a bill that would have repealed efficiency standards for light bulbs fell short of the two-thirds majority required for passage of an expedited bill, so for now, new energy-saving, cost saving light bulbs will still be required starting in January 2012.  Seems a no-brainer, right?

Here's the background. In 2007, Rep. Fred Upton (R, MI) authored a provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which set efficiency standards for light bulbs, with the goal of reducing both emissions and consumers' energy bills.  EISA passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 319-100, a slightly revised version was passed by the Senate, and it was signed into law by President Bush in June 2007.  The bill was supported by the domestic light bulb industry, which stood to benefit from the design and manufacture of new bulbs, as well as by environmentalists.  The new standards were projected to save households approximately $100 in energy costs per year, and re-engineered incandescent light bulbs would use 28 to 33 percent less energy.  In a press conference soon after the bill was passed, Upton said "This common sense, bipartisan approach partners with American industry to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs...all the while saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills."  Saves energy, saves money, creates jobs; what's not to like, right?  As recently as 2009, Upton continued to support the standards, stating that Congress had worked with industry and environmentalists to come up with sensible goals for efficiency and cost savings.

Then Republicans won control of the House in 2010, and the poor light bulb was made to endure conservative wrath (you can insert your own joke here about the "dim" future of the efficient light bulb). Both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck accused Upton, who was hoping to be selected as chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee, of socialist tyranny for using government mandates to set energy- and money-saving standards, thereby reducing consumer choices among light bulbs.   In response to this criticism, Upton promised that he would revisit the "light bulb issue".  Apparently being in favor of industry regulation - or even worse, authoring it - doesn't look good when the party of "small government" is in power. Never mind the fact that minimum efficiency and safety standards are law for most major appliances, and have been since the 1970s.  The common, inefficient, and cheap incandescent light bulb had suddenly become the symbol of consumer freedom, and any attempt to regulate it became an attempt by the government to tell consumers what they can and cannot buy.

Sure enough, earlier this year, Texas Republican Joe Barton sponsored a bill that would repeal the light bulb standards.  In fact, H.R. 2417 was rushed straight through to a floor vote, bypassing the normal legislative process, including committee hearings.   Upton's response to the introduction of the bill that would repeal his own? “It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use.  The public response on this issue is a clear signal that markets — not governments — should be driving technological advancements. I will join my colleagues to vote yes on a bill to protect consumer choice and guard against federal overreach.”  Um, what does that even mean?  Oh well, I'm sure his flip-flop had nothing to do with the fact that the original bill was opposed by the Koch brothers-funded conservative group Americans for Prosperity, and Koch Industry employees donated generously to Upton's 2010 campaign.  But anyway, the bill went to a expedited vote in the House yesterday, and was defeated.  Score one for the tyranny of energy efficiency.

So to recap, a law that had bipartisan support in 2007, and was signed by a Republican president, and that will cut energy cost and reduce energy use, has become in 2011 a symbol of socialism and government interference in consumers' right to choose. Ain't democracy grand?

Warning: the national debt is not a toy

"Everything's on the table, except raising taxes", House Speaker John Boehner said in a press conference prior to meeting with President Obama on July 3 to discuss the debt ceiling and deficit crises.  How then, might Boehner suggest the country close the deficit gap and thus reduce its need for borrowing?  Spending cuts alone will not rein in the deficit in any meaningful way.  The math bears this out - you can Google it yourself to see.  The country needs increased revenue as well as spending cuts, and it needs them quickly.  The GOP has dug its heels in on any tax increase, especially its beloved Bush tax cuts for individuals making over $200,000 or couples making over $250,000.  Because you see, those are the people who will create jobs for the rest of us.  But wait, didn't we just extend these tax cuts in 2010, on the same premise?  And where exactly are those jobs the wealthy were supposed to create with that money?  This shouldn't be a rhetorical question, but I have not heard a single answer...

I should make it clear that there are two separate but related issues in play.  One is the deficit, or the amount by which government spending exceeds revenue.  The other is the debt ceiling, which is the highest amount the government can legally borrow.  The immediate concern is the debt ceiling, which is currently at $14.3 trillion.  If that ceiling is not raised before August 2, the approximate day our debt will hit that limit, the U.S. could, for the first time ever, default on its loans.  So what?  Well, the government might not be able to make timely payments for bond obligations, some government salaries and Social Security.  Also, the global financial system may fall into chaos if the US economy is deemed precarious.  Oh, and the US will be considered a bad credit risk for a very long time (read: China will be ticked off.)

Many Republicans have signed a pledge that any increased tax revenues will be offset by other tax cuts so that the federal government will not see any increase in its coffers, in order to "keep government small".  What part of "deficit crisis" do they not understand? These tax revenues are about keeping government solvent, not making it big.  No matter how much spending is cut, the government needs increased revenue to cut the deficit (and consequently reduce its debt) and a bake sale sure isn't going to make that happen. Some lawmakers, and even the President, have talked about rewriting the tax code to cut out loopholes and increase revenue, but even if that is effective, it will take years to accomplish, and we have only weeks until the clock runs out.

Yet Republican lawmakers remain steadfast in their refusal to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.  In fact, I'd hazard a guess that they are more stubborn about this than many of their wealthy constituents.  Have they even asked their constituents?  Or perhaps this not about constituents at all, but about the special interest groups that line GOP campaign coffers.

Anyway, with the clock ticking on the global reputation of the US economy, I say this to the Republicans in the House. You won in 2010. Now's your chance  to prove that you can do better than the Democrats when it comes to the economy, although you sure haven't impressed me yet.  BUT, if you hold your breath til you turn blue and get your Bush tax cut extensions, the Democrats get a few things in exchange.  The debt ceiling must be raised. Second, tax revenue has to be found elsewhere.  There have been talks about reducing tax breaks for ethanol use, the oil and gas industries, corporate jet owners, and hedge fund managers.  Ending these tax breaks would result in $13 billion of increased revenues in a fiscal year.   It's not the best solution, but with the GOP holding the reins in the House, it may be the best we can push through by the August 2 deadline.

Back to those tax cuts that were supposed to spur economic growth. The GOP argues that any increase in taxes will slow the economy further, although there has been no evidence that keeping the tax cuts has created more jobs.  But you know what will really slow the economy? The United States coming close to defaulting on its loans, and then failing to decrease the deficit.  The debt and the deficit are not toys. Children under 5, and lawmakers, should not be allowed to play with them.

Bachmann Mania - will it last?

I was supposed to have finished this blog yesterday, but I lost an entire afternoon of productivity thanks to the &%@# Casey Anthony verdict.  But I promised not to write about that trial, so let's move on.

Minnesota Rep Michele Bachmann appears to have replaced Sarah Palin as the sweetheart of the Tea Party, and is, as of last week, running third among potential GOP Presidential candidates (behind Mitt Romney and not-yet official candidate Rick Perry). Everyone knows she likes to talk, and has sometimes made comments of questionable accuracy, such as claiming that President Obama's 2010 Asia trip cost $200 million per day. Yet her supporters love her "charisma and energy", as she criss-crosses the country blasting the Obama administration. But it seems that Republican voters may have more admiration for her than do her Republican colleagues. She has a history, both in the Minnesota Senate and the U.S. House, of introducing fringe bills that gain little support, and of not being able to hold on to leadership positions.

Bachmann was elected to the Minnesota Senate in 2000. During her term, she may be best known for twice proposing an amendment to the state constitution barring the recognition of same-sex marriage - even though Minnesota law already prohibited it.  At a town hall forum in 2005, she literally ran into the bathroom to hide from constituents who wanted to discuss gay rights. She was appointed Assistant Minority Leader in Charge of Policy for the Senate Republican Caucus in 2004. Within a year, however, she was removed from that post by the Republican Caucus, due to, Bachmann claims, her strong anti-tax and pro-life stances.  Um, isn't it common for Republicans to be anti-tax and pro-life?  I wonder if there's more to her removal than she claims.

Bachmann was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2006.  In July 2010, she filed paperwork to create the House Tea Party Caucus, to support the "principles of the founding fathers" (of whom we can state with confidence that John Quincy Adams was not one).  I bet I'm not the only one to find it ironic that the anti-government Tea Party has a caucus in the House of Representatives.   Oh, and she totally stole the idea from Rand Paul.  Anyway, the caucus has 60 members, all Republican, but several House members, including Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio, refused to join because  the Republican party should be united, not splintered into cliques. 

After winning a third House term in November 2010, Bachmann decided to seek the position of House Republican Conference Chair. However, she was passed over for the GOP transiti0n team, and ultimately not selected for the leadership post. According to internal sources, many GOP House members were concerned about her propensity for gaffes, and also wondered if she would do more to advance her own message than that of the GOP.

In addition to the fact that her colleagues appear not to trust her leadership abilities, some of her actions and statements while in the House call her judgment, as well as her understanding of the law, into question. Some of these have made headlines, but others have not. For example, in 2009, in response to China's idea for an international global reserve currency, she introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would bar the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency. She did this despite the fact that: 1) Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner had already categorically rejected the idea of adopting a foreign currency, and 2) Federal law already prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the United States.  Was this another attempt to deem the Obama administration "anti-American"?

So what's my point? Although Bachmann is a formidable fundraiser with the ability to fire up an audience, it doesn't appear that she has tried to accomplish much from a legislative standpoint, outside of her own agenda, which is largely anti-tax, anti-gay, and anti-abortion.  Her record simply doesn't say much about how she'd lead the country.  In her recent stump speeches, she talks about what the current administration is doing wrong, but not what she'd do differently...other than repealing "Obamacare" and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.  Michele Bachmann epitomizes the nickname of the GOP as the "Party of No".  Saying "no" to everything Democrat may fire up the supporters for the time being, but when her supporters realize that she simply has nothing to offer in exchange for the policies the GOP and the Tea Party don't like, they may turn to someone with a track record of getting things done..and a record of being able to "play well with others".  Or will they?  Her supporters like to trumpet the fact that she's never lost an election. So that might make her a winner...until there's actual work to be done.

Hello? ~tap, tap~ Is this thing on?

Greetings from the great city of Chicago, and welcome to my politico-socio-cultural-non-hipster blog!

I am an Obama supporter, a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't necessarily believe that all Republicans and conservatives are ignorant and selfish.  In fact, I have a conservative to thank for my decision to start this blog.  My Facebook arguments with his friends left me unsatisfied, especially when they descended into pointing out each others' spelling and grammatical errors.  And Twitter doesn't allow much more rebuttal than "same to you and more of it".  So I decided to indulge my passions for politics, writing, and debate, and join the blogosphere!  I love discourse, and encourage any and all intelligent comments - just please don't call me a moron or point out my typos.

What will I write about?  Well, the Presidential election season has already begun, so there's that.  But there's much more going on in the country of equal importance.   Congress, the State Department, and even state and local governments are newsworthy almost every day.  I might even write about Joe Biden or Rahm Emanuel just because I'm a fan.  However, I can promise you that I will never write a blog about Rod Blagojevich or Casey Anthony. 

But enough about me. Today is Independence Day; go watch some fireworks, roast some hot dogs, or whatever it is you do to celebrate. I'll talk to you later!