Abstaining From Abstinence-Only Programs
By Kay Steiger - Aug 20th, 2008 at 12:13 pmOver at Campus Progress, Stephanie Gross, who works on women’s health issues at the Center for American Progress, runs down everything you need to know about abstinence-only programs–often called “education” even though they tend to miseducate young people about contraception. She also prepared some great information about where the two major candidates stand on the issue:
John McCain and Barack Obama have very different positions on family planning, sex education, and women’s health. According to a report (PDF) by NARAL Pro-Choice America, as a Senator, McCain has voted against sexual and reproductive health 115 times out of 119 total votes. If you include his time in the House, the number is 125 out of 130. He said he supports President Bush’s policies surrounding abstinence-only programs, and when asked if he thinks condoms help stop the spread of HIV, he replied, “You’ve stumped me.”
Obama has declared that abstinence-only programs are not enough. Before a conservative Christian audience in December 2006, Obama said he “respectfully but unequivocally disagrees with those who oppose condom distribution to fight the AIDS pandemic.” He is a co-sponsor the Responsible Education about Life (REAL) Act, which provides federal funding for state comprehensive sex education. Obama has said it is important to teach abstinence as part of a comprehensive curriculum, but he doesn’t believe the federal government should fund abstinence-only programming.
Check out her article here.
Gingrich, Hannity: Tire Inflation Benefits “Big Oil”
By Kay Steiger - Aug 20th, 2008 at 11:39 amVia Steve Benen, here’s Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity’s show giggling about Barack Obama’s suggestion that properly inflating your tires can help you save gas:
Gingrich says that because gas stations make a bigger profit on the tire inflation service (duh) than on gasoline, somehow Obama is promoting “Big Oil.” Apparently Gingrich doesn’t understand that oil companies don’t distribute air compressors.
Isn’t Gingrich supposed to be a “visionary” who is promoting sound environmental policy? Oh yeah, that’s right–Gingrich is just another conservative who takes up the mantle of environmentalism when it’s popular but doesn’t actually show any real commitment to changing environmental policy. Gingrich goes along with Hannity’s “more drilling” mantra even though science shows that drilling would do little to impact the price of gasoline. Gingrich shows here that he’s the same old partisan hack he’s always been.
BREAKING: Lieberman to Speak at GOP Convention
By Saxon Baird - Aug 20th, 2008 at 10:59 amThe Huffington Post just reported that a Republican official speaking on anonymity has reported that Democrat -turned-Independent-turned-??? Joe Lieberman of Connecticut will speak at the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. Though an official announcement has not yet been made, this could be the last step in what has been a complete political transformation for Lieberman. In less than eight years, he’s gone from being Al Gore’s running mate to, potentially, helping Republicans announce their nomination of John McCain.
C’est bizarre, non?
All Electric, All the Time
By Jamie Henn - Aug 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Wired has a great cover feature this month on Shai Agassi and his innovative plan to get electric cars on the road. First off, it’s good to see Wired covering innovative technological solutions again (it wasn’t so long ago they were telling us to keep our SUVs). What really struck me about the article, though, is Agassi’s ambition.
Rather than advocate for the construction of a few electric cars, Agassi works for a complete redesign of our transportation networks. You can read the article to get the details, but let’s just say for now that it involves electric cars, GPS, text messaging, battery swaps, and more.
Ambition is completely missing from the current debate on energy. The last couple of weeks saw Democrats cave to Republicans on offshore drilling, a complete hoax. Part of the problem is that neither party is presenting a visionary (and ambitious) plan for a clean energy economy. Instead of plans for energy independence, we get “drill here, drill now.” Instead of blueprints for an infrastructure to support electric cars, we get plans for more oil rigs.
Timid politicians on both sides of the aisle should be heeding the advice of the architect Daniel Burnham:
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work.
People will debate the possibility of Agassi’s plans, but you have to give him credit: they’re big.
BREAKING NEWS: Bigfoot Still Not Real
By L. Russell Allen - Aug 20th, 2008 at 9:15 amThe stupid Bigfoot corpse story has been getting front page status for weeks on sites like CNN.com and FoxNews.com. It turns out the corpse was a rubber suit. What a surprise.
So why was this such a big, top of the fold story? Are people sick of reading about the presidential race? Is it just an excuse to publish something more lighthearted than stories of American casualties abroad, missing white children, and shark attacks?
I don’t care what the reason is, the coverage of this obvious hoax is shameful. The media won’t cover why Barack Obama’s support of ethanol is a travesty or why John McCain’s health care plan will greatly harm the working class. We have to get that stuff from blogs. But an obviously false bigfoot corpse? News!
If a Scot discovers a Nessie skeleton in 2012, Fox News and CNN better have learned their lessons.
Rachel Maddow Gets a Show
By Kay Steiger - Aug 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pmThe big end-of-the-day news is that Rachel Maddow (finally) got her own show on MSNBC. Campus Progress interviewed Maddow back in June, before the New York Times or Nation profiles of her. At the time, she said:
And rumor has it that people are talking about you getting your own show on MSNBC. Is it true?
I’ve made no secret about the fact that I would love for that to happen, but there isn’t a secret Rachel Maddow show on TV in the works.
I’m excited enough to think about watching cable news again.
Rick Warren: An Evangelical that Progressives Can (Maybe) Be Okay With
By Saxon Baird - Aug 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pmOver the last two weeks a number of publications have taken up the task at examining the anomaly that is evangelical pastor Rick Warren, who hosted the Saddleback Civil Forum, in which he publicly interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain, over the weekend. The most recent issue of The Economist declared him “the most powerful evangelical in America,” asking whether he might be the next Billy Graham. A recent article in Time proclaimed that “religion in America will never be the same” because of his influence. That piece goes on to note that Warren is unique because he has remained “conspicuously neutral on candidates,” while spending “the past few years positioning himself for… a role as a suprapolitical, supracreedal arbiter of public virtues and religious responsibilities.”
If you’re like me, you cringe at the word “evangelical.” Though I understand this is a bit of a caricature, I associate the term with Bush-loving conservatives and radical preachers proclaiming natural disasters as God’s will. However, my interest was piqued when I heard that the strange preacher who wears Hawaiian shirts and has done air-guitar moves on stage while singing “Purple Haze” by Jimi Hendrix had brought together Obama and McCain to talk about faith at his Southern California-based Saddleback Church.
What I discovered was that Rick Warren isn’t really all that bad.
Harry and Louise: the Remix
By Kay Steiger - Aug 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pmVia Wonk Room. The ad largely credited with killing health care reform in the 1990s starred Harry and Louise, sitting at a kitchen table talking about how they didn’t like health insurance plans drummed up by the “bureaucrats” in Washington:
But now, Harry and Louise are back, lobbying for health care reform:
The ad is funded by the Cancer Association Network, Families USA, the America’s Hospital Association, the Catholic Health Association, and–probably most surprising of all–the National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association that’s historically been to the right of the Chamber of Commerce.
Small businesses seem to be terrified. They increasingly can’t afford to pay for insurance plans and have joined major national coalitions in lobbying for universal coverage. It’s an interesting shift in the health care debate, and seems to suggest that real change might be more possible than it was in the 1990s.
National Review Has No Idea What American Catholics Believe, Comments Nonetheless
By Jesse Singal - Aug 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pmNational Review Online has a really, really poorly thought-out article on Catholics and abortion written by Carl A. Anderson, the head of the Knights of Columbus. The “Catholic vote” has decided the winner of the last nine presidential contests and has influenced countless other races, writes Anderson, so Catholics can and should use their influence to only vote for politicians who are against abortion.
It takes Anderson forever to get to his point, but here it is:
It’s time Catholics stop accommodating pro-abortion-rights politicians and it’s time to start demanding that they accommodate us. This is the only decision that offers the real chance for real change, because no candidate or political party can withstand the loss of millions of Catholic voters in this — or any other — election. In this election, if a Catholic cannot vote for the pro-life candidate, then not voting for that office may be the sincerest expression of faithful citizenship.
This year, Catholic voters have the power to transform politics. As faithful citizens, Catholics can build a new politics — a politics that is not satisfied with the status quo, but one that is dedicated to building up a culture of life. If they stand together and demand better from politicians, Catholics can transform politics, and that would be real change. [emphasis his]
Right. Except none of this actually applies, because American Catholics are famously recalcitrant when it comes to accepting the strictures of the Church’s higher-ups, particularly with regard to abortion.
Obama-White Man ‘08
By Masoud Shafaee - Aug 19th, 2008 at 11:45 amIn the search for Barack Obama’s running mate, several names have been floated and are rumored to be on the Senator’s “short list.” Each is said to add certain strengths to the ticket that would nicely complement Obama’s supposed weaknesses. Some bring foreign policy expertise, others add experience, some counter his “liberal” image, while others are seen as valuable for their ability to court both Catholic and Hispanic voters, demographics that polls show Obama is struggling with. Others are attractive merely for their ability to make swing or traditionally red states competitive come November. Let’s go through the list:
- Joe Biden - Experienced, has foreign policy expertise, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Catholic.
- Tim Kaine - Catholic, fluent in Spanish, governor of newly competitive Virginia: a traditional red state.
- Evan Bayh - Experienced, centrist, member of the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, senator (and former governor) from newly competitive Indiana, a traditional red state.
- Chuck Hagel - Experienced, Republican, has foreign policy expertise, is a Vietnam veteran.
- Sam Nunn - Experienced, centrist, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, former governor of newly competitive Georgia, a traditional red state.
One name absent from the list is Bill Richardson. Richardson is the current governor of New Mexico, a very competitive swing-state. He is Catholic, fluent in Spanish, and is widely seen as a centrist. And his foreign policy credentials? He was the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and has been called on by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to serve as a key negotiator with Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba, among other nations.
Given that Richardson has all of the attributes that Obama is perceived as lacking, why has he not been receiving more attention as a potential VP? Could it be that he’s more than fluent in Spanish–that he’s Hispanic? With his Anglican surname and lighter complexion, this would not ordinarily be an issue. But given that the presumptive Democratic nominee is already a minority, the question must be asked: Is Richardson receiving less attention simply because he is a man of color? Would a completely non-white Democratic ticket be political suicide–and if so, what does that say about the state of race relations? Perhaps we’re not as post-racial as Obama would have us believe.
Arguing About The Milton Friedman Institute
By Matt Zeitlin - Aug 19th, 2008 at 10:51 amIt seems like it’s impossible to say anything about Milton Friedman without finding yourself facing a barrage of criticism. Libertarians insist he was the greatest economic thinker of the 20th century, while many progressives think that he and his ideology are responsible for everything from the horrors of the Villa Grimaldi to the Tiananmen Square Massacre. So, when the University of Chicago announced that they were going to found a Milton Friedman Institute in honor the deceased scholar, controversy ensued.
Most notably, some 100 faculty members signed a letter stating their opposition to the institute. They were worried that because of Friedman’s poor reputation among some in the global south, the Institute would sully the University’s reputation internationally. They also worried that due to the massive amount of private funding that the Institute would get, as well as its libertarian/conservative leaning, that its prominent presence on the U of C campus would actually be an impediment to free discussion and study of economics. Of course, all of these signatories have deep, substantive disagreements with Friedman’s ideology.
Now Marshall Sahlins, a signatory of the original letter and a renowned anthropologist, has published his own indictment of the institute in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The piece, unfortunately, is marred by Sahlins’ own attempts to score points by knocking Friedman’s economic theories.
Politics Requires Compromise
By Matt Zeitlin - Aug 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pmI’m a bit less disappointed than Jessica with Nancy Pelosi considering the Gang of Ten energy legislation. Although we’d all like to see Democrats being able to pass truly progressive energy legislation, without oil industry flacks and to Republicans demanding that we drill, we can’t simply ignore the fact that much of the public wants to drill because they think that it will lower gas prices.
But we should also focus on the good parts of the bill, which show that Pelosi hasn’t totally given up on saving the planet. The Bloomberg article Jessica links to says that the Sierra Club–a group that’s going to view any new energy legislation with skepticism–supports the bill because it provides some alternative energy subsidies, and in the long term, would actually show that marginally more drilling will do absolutely nothing to lower gas prices or increase the United States’ energy independence.
It’s unfortunate that people are so enthralled with drilling as the solution to our energy woes, but it’s the political reality that Pelosi is forced to deal with, so she should get some credit for working to get something done, as opposed to just doing nothing.
The Olympics: All About the Benjamins?
By Saxon Baird - Aug 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pmMichael Phelps just put on what was arguably the most spectacular exhibition of athleticism in Olympic history. Newspapers across the country have hailed him as possibly the greatest Olympian of all time. And while Phelps’ talent is undeniable, I can’t help but view his success as not just a demonstration of talent and hard work, but of resources and economic backing. Not to take away from Phelps’ historic Olympic success, but I have to ask: Would Phelps have done as well swimming for a country with fewer economic resources to support its athletes? I doubt it.
The top three medal winning countries as of today are China, the United States, and Russia. All of which are large, economically affluent countries. Australia, Germany, and France make up the fourth through six th spots. In the top 10 medal winners there are only three Asian countries, and none located in Africa or South America. The reason for this is clear: A country’s Olympic success directly correlates to the level of funding and the quality of training it can provide to its Olympic athletes.
Take Britain, for example. According an article in The Daily Telegraph, prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Britain divvied up 5 million pounds among the 28 Olympic events in which it competed. In 2000, this funding was boosted and the end result was Britain’s best medal results since the 1920 Olympics in Antwerp. In 2006, Prime Minister Gordon Brown increased Olympic funding by yet another 500 million pounds. The outcome is that Great Britain has the third most gold medals and is sixth overall in the medal count so far.
Admittedly, this doesn’t appear to apply to every events. Less economically viable countries are often able to compete in sports like baseball, soccer, and volleyball. However, these countries also only excel in a few sports and will be nowhere near the top medal finishers. For example, Cuba’s baseball team is currently undefeated in Olympic competition. But Cuba is only competing in seven different sports. Or take soccer: Last Saturday, Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire competed against each other in the men’s soccer quarterfinals (Nigeria advanced), but men’s soccer is the only sport in which Cote d’Ivoire is competing, while Nigeria is only competing in four and has not medaled so far.
The Olympics seem like little more than a self-congratulatory chance for rich countries to further bolster their claims of superiority by shelling out enough funding for their athletes to compete at the highest level. My Olympic watching is thus selective; if the global south doesn’t have a chance in a given event, then I don’t care about it. Congratulations to the G8 (plus China and the Aussies): You have officially asserted your dominance over the rest of the globe in yet one more way.
