A few people died yesterday

As you probably could not avoid learning, two widely known people died yesterday. One from cardiac arrest, the other after a long fight with cancer. To my mind, an appropriate response includes concern for their families and loved ones, who are certainly hurting during such a time.

However, as the corporate media has surely not mentioned, more than just two people died on June 25, 2009.

At an average of 105 deaths per month in 2009 alone, between three and four Darfuries died yesterday. This, after most of the rest of the world has watched for more than five years and done almost nothing.

Almost 200 women died yesterday because they did not have access to legal and safe abortion.

Around 1,500 people died in the Congo, even though the war "ended" five years ago.

More than 4,000 died in Africa because of AIDS, in large part due to Vatican and Republican Party opposition to the distribution of, and education regarding, condoms.

Across the globe, more than 5,000 people died yesterday simply because they do not have access to clean water, while an estimated 16,000 children died because they do not have enough food. When was the last time you heard anybody in the corporate media talk about food or water shortages, in the context of global over-population?

When was the last time you heard a politician that you support speak to this issue, or any of the above issues?

It goes without saying that we could expand this list almost indefinitely. The point is that people are dying completely preventable deaths, every hour of every day, while most news outlets in the United States seem content to tell us all about the latest starlet fashion faux pas, who is getting paid too much to play sports, which American car company has a shitty plan to improve their sales figures, the summer fashion choices of a host of celebrities, and the latest manufactured reality-TV scandal. Oh, and if somebody died and they were famous, they will probably tell us all about that, too. But preventable (or U.S. foreign policy caused) deaths around the globe? There is little time to cover that.

Looking back at 2008

Tom Tomorrow rings in the new year with a look back at 2008.



To see the full Part 1 strip, click here. To see the full Part 2 strip, click here.

Happy New Year!

Republicans - Fiscally Conservative?

A little over a month ago, Garry Trudeau penned this spectacular strip for his Sunday Doonesbury comic.

To summarize: of our over $9 trillion dollars of national debt, 70% was accumulated under just three presidents (Reagan, Bush, Bush). Of 19 proposed budgets, only 2 were balanced.

Thus, the strip posed an important question: what's up with the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility?

Intrigued by this, I did some more reading. I found an article by Michael Kinsley (whose last name is pronounced like idiots think mine is) summarizing the 2005 Economic Report Of The President. His findings? On average, yearly Big Government spending increases at least 37% more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Since 1960, the average yearly federal deficit is $131 billion, but that number under Democratic presidents is only $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit grows by $36 billion, while it shrinks $25 billion in an average Democratic year. National debt under Republican administrations goes up more than double the amount of increase under Democratic administrations.

I also found this report by Steve McGourty (links seems broken, so check here instead). He explains that since 1946, Democratic administrations have been responsible for increasing the national debt an average of 3.2% per year, while Republican administrations are responsible for an average increase of 9.7% (that's a three-to-one ratio). Since 1945, during any given year when Republicans have been in charge of both the Executive branch and the Congress, spending has never been reduced. He also notes that Reagan campaigned and got elected while calling for a balanced budget amendment, only to never submit a single balanced budget himself. Furthermore, under Reagan the national debt increased by more than 200%, the only beneficiary being the rich people whose taxes were cut. And if you find any of this surprising, you simply must read his summary/conclusions.*

I found several reports (check out this one, or this one) on zFacts that give more details regarding the brief summary in Trudeau's comic. Also, you can check out this graph, or follow this running total. The numbers and facts are truly stunning.

Moral of the story? Most people who name fiscal conservativism as a primary reason they vote for Republicans have been sadly, badly, terribly deceived.

Troubling Tricephaly

Doc Philbert, I thought you'd forgotten "bigotry against
homosexuals" and "revoke reproductive freedom," but then
I figured that was all rolled into the head on the left.

What Upsets Me About The Recent Election

While I was quite happy to attend John Yarmuth's election (and victory) party on Tuesday evening, and while it is encouraging to see such local progress reflected in the nationwide tide of Democratic victories, there are still a few things about this week's election results that are troubling to me.

For instance, Bob Corker defeated the Democratic candidate Harold Ford, Jr. in the Tennessee Senate race. Shame on the non (or disgruntled) Republicans in that state who didn't turn out to vote for Ford. But what is more upsetting is that so many people would vote for Corker, considering that he is known to have been involved in shady land deals where protected wetlands were sold to Wal*Mart. Yes, Wal*Mart. How anybody could vote for somebody who would sell such an important natural resource, to Wal*Mart, is beyond me. Furthermore, Corker is known to be willfully ignorant in the face of the scientific evidence regarding global warming. That such a candidate didn't result in an additional victory for Democrats is astonishing.

Also, it is startling that John Shimkus so easily defeated the Democratic candidate Dan Stover in the Illinois Congress race. Again, any Democrat voters who stayed at home on Tuesday should be ashamed. But it is surprising that Shimkus won by such a wide margin, when it is known that he kept his fellow Page Board members in the dark concerning his knowledge of Foley's impropriety, back in late 2005. At best, such behavior is extremely suspicious, and I wouldn't have anticipated so many people voting for Shimkus in spite of it.

I find both of these instances troubling, but it's obvious that we are blind to the local circumstances, issues, and campaign advertising (except for that smutty, racist anti-Harold Ford attack ad), and their effects on the outcome.

However, the import of both of these examples is exceeded by other voting results, not for candidates, but for initiatives. In seven out of the eight states where such an issue was on the ballot, people voted to ban same-sex marriage. While the new Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress is surely cause for celebration, such a victory is quickly tempered when we consider the passage of these marriage bans. It may be true that people across the country have voted in favor of fiscal responsibility, scientific integrity, accountable governing, and sensible foreign policy. But the sobering reality is that many people are also voting in favor of bigotry and religious discrimination.

Progressives and moderates will do well not to take too much solace in the congressional switch-over, knowing that there are still very important issues requiring serious attention and diligent effort in the years to come.

Attention Republican Party

Dear GOP,

The cost of obtaining my vote has gone up. The new price requires rational and logical support for planks in the platform, and policies that are honest, accountable, and responsible.

My vote will no longer be obtained by appeals to neo-Fundamentalist values. I will not be swayed by a "pro-life" banner that contains mutually contradictory positions (anti-abortion but pro-death penalty and pro-war; anti-stem cell research but pro-invitro fertilization, et cetera). My vote will not be won by religiously-motivated "abstinance only" campaigns that have spent billions on an "education" program that has been proven (time and again) to be ineffective, and that often includes overt lying to children.

Furthermore, the trumpeting of conservative "family values" that represent nothing more than bigotry, thinly veiled oppression, fear, religiously-fueled discrimination, and hatred, will absolutely not convince me to vote in your favor.

I will no longer vote for a party who has shown repeatedly that it has no respect for scientific integrity.

My vote will not go to a party who's leadership has consistently engaged in illegal activities (secret military tribunals, unconstitutional wiretaps, blatant cruelty and torture and seemingly endless violations of the Geneva Conventions) and steadfastly refuses to admit to any wrong-doing. In fact, rather than own up to its deeds, the administration had instead asked for "clarity" in an attempt to re-write the rules and legalize the torture they've been caught doing. Such behavior is completely appalling and absolutely unacceptable.

Speaking of illegal activities... How many people in the current administration have been indicted now? Libby, Noe, Safavian, DeLay, and soon Frist, and others? My vote will not be had by any Republican who ignores or approves of such wide-ranging problems.

I will not vote for any candidates that engage in their party's new "strategy" of using name-calling and made-up-words to marginalize opposing views and obfuscate legitimate matters of importance. The new fad of using empty transitory slogans, one-liner (or recently, one-worder) epithets, and divisive polarizing rhetoric will simply not earn my vote, and should be recognized for what it is: childish and an obstacle to progress.

My vote will not be given to the party that repeatedly attempts to cancel programs that hold it accountable for its policies. Examples, such as trying to silence the SIPP because it proves an increase in US poverty, railroading the OSC by dispensing with whistleblower protection, and granting the Pentagon arbitrary immunity from the FOIA, are indicative of Orwellian government and should be exposed and decried, not tacitly approved of.

I will not vote for a party who's fiscal and economic policies have encouraged or caused one of the largest deficits in history (including a nearly 9 trillion dollar national debt), and promoted the enrichment of the rich. Furthermore, I will not vote in favor of an administration that seeks to increase spending on propaganda while cutting support for real reporting from PBS and NPR.

The above is a brief explanation of the many reasons I have for reconsidering how I spend my vote. It should be clear that even without considering the increasing problems and mistakes of the "war on terror" (and the administration-leaked NIE report that says invading Iraq has made terrorism worse), the reasons are plentiful. I would encourage others to think carefully and weigh the value of your vote, and join me in my resolve not to give that vote away for far too cheap a price.