Google

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Honoring the First Black Nobel Prize Winner: Ralph Bunche

When I was a young child, my mother had an office in the Antro department at UCLA. Her office was in Bunche Hall, a building I always knew as "the waffle" because of its appearance at a distance. Outside the building is kind of bland: rectangular with regularly spaced square windows (hence our seeing it as "the waffle" as kids...and I admit even today). The interior courtyard contains lush plants rising up through the center of the building...something I fondly remembered in dreams for many years before rediscovering the building that contained it. I remember wondering for years if that memory of plants growing inside a building (really in a courtyard) was real or a kid's imagination. Nearby is the UCLA sculpture garden where my brother and I played while my mother worked back in those days where leaving kids alone to play was common.

Memories of Bunche Hall and the sculpture garden have always remained with me. Now, every other year, when my field has an international conference at UCLA, I stay in the UCLA guest house right across the street from these memories so I can reconnect with my earliest association with the place. I have many other associations with UCLA (including getting my doctorate there) but those earliest days of "the waffle" and rolling down the hill of the sculpture garden are the root of my love for the place.

All those years I barely knew who Bunche Hall was named after. Barely even thought of it. These days places are often named for donors, not people of genuine accomplishment. So I never really wondered who was the Bunche that "the waffle" was named after.

Ralph Bunche was, I learned far more recently, one amazing person. In the days when separate but equal was still accepted in the United States, Ralph Bunche mediated the first peace between Israel and the Arab nations, was the first black person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and received the Medal of Freedom from President John F. Kennedy. All before Jim Crow was officially dead.

Here is the biography of Ralph Bunche on the Nobel Prize website.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work negotiating peace in the Middle East in the late 1940's. After the assassination of the chief UN negotiator, Folke Bernadotte, by the radical (and rather disgusting) Jewish militant group Lehi, Ralph Bunche became the chief UN negotiator to end the war that followed the withdrawal of the British from Palestine/Israel. His efforts brought about the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Israeli representative Moshe Dayan remembers Ralph Bunche making commemorative plates for each negotiator long before the final agreement was reached. Taken aback by this optimism, Moshe Dayan asked what Bunche would have done had the talks fallen apart. Ralph Bunche replied, "I'd have broken the plates over your damn heads."

Later Bunche also served as mediator in conflicts in the Congo, Yemen, Kashmir, and Cyprus.

All while Jim Crow was alive and well in the United States. It is hard for me to imagine that the United States clung so tightly to racism at a time when someone like Ralph Bunche was winning the Nobel Peace prize for such a public and difficult endeavor.

Here is Bunche's acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize:

To be honored by one's fellow men is a rich and pleasant experience. But to receive the uniquely high honor here bestowed today, because of the world view of Alfred Nobel long ago, is an overwhelming experience. To the President and members of the Nobel Committee I may say of their action, which at this hour finds its culmination, only that I am appreciative beyond the puny power of words to convey. I am inspired by your confidence.

I am not unaware, of course, of the special and broad significance of this award - far transcending its importance or significance to me as an individual - in an imperfect and restive World in which inequalities among peoples, racial and religious bigotries, prejudices and taboos are endemic and stubbornly persistent. From this northern land has come a vibrant note of hope and inspiration for vast millions of people whose bitter experience has impressed upon them that color and inequality are inexorably concomitant.

There are many who figuratively stand beside me today and who are also honored here. I am but one of many cogs in the United Nations, the greatest peace organization ever dedicated to the salvation of mankind's future on earth. It is, indeed, itself an honor to be enabled to practise the arts of peace under the aegis of the United Nations.

As I now stand before you, I cannot help but reflect on the never-failing support and encouragement afforded me, during my difficult assignment in the Near East, by Trygve Lie:, and by his Executive Assistant, Andrew Cordier. Nor can I forget any of the more than 700 valiant men and women of the United Nations Palestine Mission who loyally served with Count Bernadotte and me, who were devoted servants of the cause of peace, and without whose tireless and fearless assistance our mission must surely have failed. At this moment, too, I recall, all too vividly and sorrowfully, that ten members of that mission gave their lives in the noble cause of peace-making.

But above all, there was my treasured friend and former chief, Count Folke Bernadotte, who made the supreme sacrifice to the end that Arabs and Jews should be returned to the ways of peace. Scandinavia, and the peaceloving world at large, may long revere his memory, as I shall do, as shall all of those who participated in the Palestine peace effort under his inspiring command.

In a dark and perilous hour of human history, when the future of all mankind hangs fatefully in the balance, it is of special symbolic significance that in Norway, this traditionally peace-loving nation, and among such friendly and kindly people of great good-will, this ceremony should be held for the exclusive purpose of paying high tribute to the sacred cause of peace on earth, good-will among men.

May there be freedom, equality and brotherhood among all men. May there be morality in the relations among nations. May there be, in our time, at long last, a world at peace in which we, the people, may for once begin to make full use of the great good that is in us.

From Les Prix Nobel en 1950, Editor Arne Holmberg, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1951


It was ten years before another black person won a Nobel Prize and 43 years before a black woman won a Nobel Prize.

A somewhat bland, but informative, video about Ralph Bunche:

Part 1:



Part 2:



It is a shame that so few people know about this remarkable man. Now I will remember him each time I look up at "the waffle" at UCLA as I walk towards the sculpture garden. It is hard for me to imagine how it felt to be right there at the center of history as a black American in 1950.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Brooklyn Primary Election 2011: First Round of Endorsements

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 is the primary election for Civil Court judge in Brooklyn. This is an election that will be extremely low turnout, yet actually the quality of our judges is something that is extremely important. If you or someone you know has to go before a judge, you damned well want that judge to be good, and yet most people ignore these races. I make it a point to get involved, learn about the candidates, and help some good candidates. Remember, a number of Brooklyn judges have been indicted and even convicted of corruption. The more people pay attention to these low turnout elections, the more likely we will have GOOD judges and avoid having judicial seats be nothing more than a political plum awarded by the corrupt Vito Lopez machine.

I want to report on two endorsement meetings that have been held by reform organizations in Brooklyn: the 52nd Assembly District County Committee and Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats.

Within Brooklyn there is one district, the 52nd Assembly district, that is best known as a "reform" district opposed to the corruption of Vito Lopez. The reformers don't always agree, but as a whole the district is one of the strongest voices for reform. This year the two district leaders from the 52nd Assembly district, Chris Owens and Jo Anne Simon, organized a 52nd Assembly District Democratic County Committee forum to help choose the best judicial candidates to support. The forum covered Civil Court Judge (2 seats open, determined by primary election on September 13) and Supreme Court (6 seats open, determined by the county Judicial Committee).

Most candidates for these seats turned in detailed questionnaires developed by District Leaders Chris Owens and Jo Anne Simon. These questionnaires were available in three notebooks circulating at the forum for anyone to read, and are available for all voters on Chris Owens' website. I urge all Brooklyn voters to read the questionnaires for Civil Court judge before voting in September. And anyone who wants to keep an eye on the Vito Lopez dominated Judicial Committee should read the Supreme Court questionnaires as well. The questionnaires include things like judicial philosophy, background, key cases judged, cases overturned or upheld by appellate courts, etc. Good info!

Candidates also gave presentations and faced questions by county committee members as well as other attendees. Joy and I were there and everyone was very carefully considering who to endorse. Most candidates came off well in their presentations, though styles varied quite a bit. I think most people felt the candidate who came off least well particularly under questioning was Shawndya Simpson. She won major points for questions on LGBT issues, but lost points on just about everything else. She also is well known as being a Vito Lopez picked candidate which also lost her points.

My impression was that ALL of the candidates were at least adequately qualified. None came off terribly in either their questionnaire or their presentations. Some did come off much better than others, though.

Here are the suggested endorsements of the 52nd Assembly District Democratic County Committee members for consideration by their District Leaders (fine print and caveat to follow in a statement by District Leader Chris Owens).

Suggested Endorsements for CIVIL COURT JUDGE (2 seats)
Cheryl Gonzalez, Peter Sweeney (incumbent)


I should note that Cheryl Gonzalez came off particularly well and most people were quite impressed with her. I think the care she takes preparing for cases was a particularly good point in her favor. Her questionnaire indicated past "qualified" ratings by several screening committees in past years. Her main experience is in housing court and as an arbitrator in small claims court. She is a member of the Women in Prison committee of the National Assn. of Women Judges.

Again, note that civil court judge will ultimately be determined by YOU the voter, so please take note of these recommendations and again, please read the questionnaires on Chris Owen's website to better inform your decision.

Suggested Endorsements for SUPREME COURT JUDGE (6 seats)
Rachel Amy Adams, Betsy Barros (incumbent), David Friedman (incumbent), Bernard Graham, Lawrence Knipel (incumbent), Betty Williams


I should note that Betty Williams came off particularly well. David Friedman came off exceptionally scholarly. Interestingly Peter Sweeney is running for both seats (not uncommon) and the County Committee members endorsed him for Civil Court (where he is an incumbent) but not for Supreme Court, even though he is acting Supreme right now. I am not clear on why except some people seemed wary of his running for two seats (note: at least one other candidate was doing the same and it is not unusual).

Again let me note that Supreme Court judges are not elected so this information is for the benefit of Judicial Committee members and for those keeping an eye on the the courts.

Here is Chris Owens' statement on the endorsement meeting:

These results are not final until all of the judicial screening panel ratings are completed and JoAnne and I have reviewed those results. Each of the top votegetters must receive a rating of Satisfactory or better from two critical panels in order to formally receive the "recommendation" of the County Committee.

We were happy with the level of participation (72 ballots cast of just over 400 County Committee members) since it was a representative sample, though there should have been even more County Committee members represented. Our outreach was limited and we will do better next time.

Most candidates submitted questionnaires, which was gratifying and helpful. We will keep them posted for the public to review on an ongoing basis.

To the extent that the incumbent judges seeking re-election may all be recommended, we feel that the voters took their recommendations seriously and recognized quality service. And, equally important, the voters did not automatically provide support to candidates with the most seniority on the bench, nor did they ignore the enduring need for greater diversity -- particularly on the Supreme Court.


Now on to the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID). This club is one of the strongest voices in the reform movement and takes its role as a reform club very seriously.

Fewer candidates came to CBID than to the 52nd County Committee Forum and CBID did not do a questionnaire this year. CBID only endorsed for the two Civil Court seats since Supreme is not an elected position. Some questioned the validity of making an endorsement on what mainly amounted to the candidates' presentations. Some of us had been at the 52nd County Committee Forum and so could give further details based on that event. There was also some input from lawyers familiar with some of the candidates.

CBID's endorsements:

Endorsements for CIVIL COURT JUDGE (2 seats)
Cheryl Gonzalez, Peter Sweeney (incumbent)


Same as the 52nd. In some ways this is not surprising given the overlap of participants. However, the discussion was also enlightening and I think the outcome not a forgone conclusion. Peter Sweeney claims to be unopposed and came off very well. Most input on this year's incumbents is that they are all qualified and good judges, including Sweeney. Two people I know who very much dislike Sweeney's original patron, John O'Hara, nevertheless felt Sweeney is good.

Again Cheryl Gonzalez came off good, though I felt she came off better at the 52nd Forum. Her excellent record in housing court was cited, including the fact that she was one of the few housing court judges who treated lawyers representing tenants with respect. Her main rival for the spot, Lorna McAllister, did not come off nearly as well at either forum. Impressions of Lorna McAllister ranged from very negative (links to the machine through her husband, District Leader Jesse Hamilton, being cited as her only qualification) to more forgiving. I think Lorna basically is okay, probably qualified, but far less experienced and impressive than Cheryl Gonzalez. With less of a record to judge her on, only a handful of people spoke on Lorna's behalf. I am told people start running for these judicial seats before they are ready mainly to get their names out. It may be that is what Lorna is doing. Regardless, Cheryl Gonzalez was the favorite.

Above all else I really urge voters not to ignore this one. Brooklyn needs more scrutiny of their judges and the process by which they become judges. I hope these endorsements and the questionnaires on Chris Owens' website will help people judge the judges and elect better ones.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Book Review: Dream in Color, by the Honorable Loretta and Linda Sanchez



When I was growing up, one of my dad's favorite sayings was "Don't let anybody ever tell you you're a dumb Mexican."


Our mom definitely taught us that there are times when we must stand up for our convictions and not back down.


Loretta Sanchez became my hero when she defeated the disgusting right wing extremist Bob Dornan in an upset victory in Orange County, California. Several years later, her sister Linda Sanchez was elected to a nearby district and they became the first ever sisters to serve in Congress.

As the children of Mexican immigrants, their story is obviously one of overcoming great odds and prejudice. But they have overcome those odds with grace, intelligence and great skill.

In 2008 Loretta and Linda (along with Richard Buskin) published their story, a book called Dream in Color. I love the title as much as I love the Sanchez sisters. And I always meant to buy the book. But I tend to read either ancient history or pure escapist science fiction or fantasy. The stupid turn to the discredited and failed right wing Republican agenda in the 2010 midterm election was what made me finally buy the book, because I knew it would be an inspiring story, and I needed an inspiring story. And I was not wrong in my expectation.

Many people work hard to conceal their background, conforming or projecting themselves in ways that are deemed socially acceptable, politically correct, physically desirable, or otherwise in vogue. And women and minorities are often more prone to this, partly because they're taught to aspire to some mythical ideal. Not us.

Growing up in a traditional Mexican family, we learned about the rich cultural values of our heritage, and as Latinas in Congress we draw daily strength from the lessons that our parents instilled in us. One of the strongest examples of such a lesson is the way Mom stood her ground when told by one of our grade school teachers that we should speak only English at home. She knew that being bilingual was an asset, and we have both repeatedly reaped the benefits of her foresight...


In most of the world being bi-, tri- or multi-lingual is not just an asset, it is a requirement. In Europe most people speak three or more languages. In Japan and India at least two. These are the countries America COMPETES with and our failure to recognize the need to speak multiple languages is one of several reasons (all fueled by right wing stupidity) that America is slowly, but surely, losing its competitive edge.

As for hiding one's ethnic identity, currently living in NYC where almost every ethic group has its own parade it amazes me that America would EVER want to abandon or deny its rich, amazing ethic and immigrant past and present. We are an immigrant nation and have been from day one. And that has been one of our greatest strengths. Yet Republican America wants to DENY that strong, amazing, idealistic immigrant past. I am descended from German refugees from economic and political problems in the wake of the 1848 Revolutions. And I am descended from Jewish refugees from pogroms. I am interested in, shaped by and proud of those roots. Why would I expect Mexican-Americans to be any less interested in, shaped by or proud of THEIR roots?

Dream in Color is the story of these daughters of Mexican immigrants (that word, "immigrant" that is supposed to be so horrible, but in reality describes all of our ancestries unless you happen to be pure Native American) who rose from tough, though not poverty, circumstances to become Congresswomen. What most right wingers could never, NEVER admit, is that in many ways this book is the ultimate story of the American Dream. The American Dream was, is and always will be the story of the immigrant family that came to America with nothing but dreamed big, worked hard, and achieved great things. THAT is the American dream and the Honorable Sanchez sisters are a perfect example of that dream.

I grew up in California and always found it somewhat amusing and disturbing that people saw my state as so liberal. I lived in Los Angeles where the stereotype largely held, but neighboring Orange County was one of the most conservative districts in the nation and was represented by right wing crazies like Bob Dornan, who wound up so batshit crazy even Newt Gingrich hesitated to openly support him for awhile.

So when, in 1996, a young woman named Loretta Sanchez had the huevos to run against Bob Dornan, I eagerly donated to her campaign, though I had little hope she could pull it off. But that donation was one of my most enthusiastic donations.

Loretta's reason for running, which I didn't know until reading Dream in Color, was basically because when she was pushing hard for improved education in her district, her Congressman Bob Dornan blew her off.

I next tried to make an appointment to see my Congress member, Bob Dornan, but he refused to meet with me. If I had wanted to meet with him about a defense project, he would have been all over it, but as far as I could tell, education held no interest for him. So, at that point, I went home and said, "I'm going to run for Congress..."

The first person I called was mu mom. When I told her what I wanted to do, she said, "Okay, we can do that..."


The fight was hard and Bob Dornan, a truely miserable human being in my opinion, was as nasty as could be, demonstrating just what true Republican "values" are these days.

When I won the pirmary...no one even knew who I was...I'd appeared out of nowhere to beat the candidates and now I was the opponent to Bob Dornan. Well, when he found out who I was he described me as a dream candidate to run against. "She can't beat me," he told the Orange County newspaper, the
OC Weekly
. "Bob Dornan [I guess like Bob Dole Dornan refers to himself in the third person] is a father of five, grandfather of ten, military man, been farried forty-one years. She has no kids, no military, no track record. I win."

WRONG.

Dismissing me resulted in his defeat. And when we had a rematch two years later, Dornan turned extremely nasty.


To my utter astonishment, moderate Democrat (former moderate Republican) Loretta Sanchez beat right wing extremist Bob Dornan. Bob Dornan, who would make today's Teabaggers (remember, THEY came up with that term!) like Carl Paladino seem reasonable, was ousted by an upstart Latina. Dornan spent the next year showing up to Congress anyway, claiming Loretta hadn't really won. He demanded a rematch two years later and was soundly defeated by the now incumbent Loretta Sanchez. I vaguely remember getting drunk in celebration of Loretta's second, absolutely definitive, win. I was immensely proud to have donated to Loretta's first two runs for Congress. The only reason I have not donated since is because she doesn't need my money and other great candidates do.

Within her first year in Congress, Loretta Sanchez proved her worth, despite being resented by many Republicans and despite being a freshman, in the passage of changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (that book that features so prominantly in the movie "A Few Good Men) to address the problem of rape of women in military service. In many ways the Uniform Code of Military Justice had failed to keep up with changes in civilian law regarding rape and so wound up protecting rapists and victimizing rape victims. Loretta Sanchez saw this problem for women in the military and sought to change it. She was, of course, solidly opposed by the good-old-boys network of the military and initially by the good-old-boys network of Congress. But she refused to let what was clearly an important issue get pushed aside, and to give credit where credit is due, she was helped by a Republican, John McHugh. Now I never really liked McHugh, but in this case he did the right thing, even to the point, according to Loretta Sanchez, of standing up to fellow Republican Duncan Hunter who wanted to let Loretta's bill die. John McHugh decided Loretta's bill was worth supporting and he went the extra mile for it. Together Sanchez and McHugh, against the inertia of the military, revised the military law codes to better handle rape cases. This all happened, from start to finish, within Loretta's first two years in Congress while Bob Dornan was still showing up and claiming he still represented the district.

I think this experience shaped Loretta Sachez's entire approach towards Congress. Loretta Sanchez is a Blue Dog Dem, which usually means bad things in my book, but Loretta, who, like Hillary Clinton, was once a Republican, represents a relatively conservative district and, though a Blue Dog, votes well and stands up on fights few other Dems stand up on. So I have always liked her. And her unconventional image, drawn from her Hispanic, hard working, immigrant background, has always endeared her to me.

As a Blue Dog, Loretta tends to be one of those compromisers in Congress that many progressives hate. But in judging Loretta one has to take into account her district (which is conservative) and her experience with Republican John McHugh, where through patience and determination she was able to find common ground and compromise and so pass a much needed bill. She learned the lesson then and there that compromise was possible and could accomplish important things. I think she has stuck to that view, though she has also never been one of the more conservative members of the Blue Dogs. I feel she remains true to progressive ideals though she also maintains a cooperative stance with conservatives. If all Blue Dogs were like Loretta Sanchez, we'd be much better off both as a party and as a country.

Loretta also, like Arianna Huffington, left the Republican party because of the realization that the Republicans did NOT represent her true values...didn't even represent the values they claimed to represent. Loretta Sanchez grew up in a family where one parent was a Democrat and one a Republican, so the choice between the two seemed a reasonable one...at first:

Whereas Mom was a compassionate Democrat, Dad ended up running his own business and reading the libertarian Orange County Register, so he was very antitax and pro-Republican. Neither of them voted back then...they didn't become US citizens until [1996]. By then, like me, Dad had converted from Republican to Democrat...

I remained registered as a Republican and never really thought about it much. That was, until one night when I was flicking through the TV channels at home and just happened to catch Pat Buchanan making an inflammatory speech, calling for an end to immigrants coming to America. I was so angry that a high-profile Republican was allowed to spew that kind of hatred on national television, the very next day I registered as a Democrat.


When Loretta's younger sister, Linda, ran for Congress in 2003, I considered it a given I would donate. If she was HALF as kick ass as Loretta, it was worth supporting her. And she won, making Loretta and Linda Sanchez not only rare in Congress as Latinas (I personally know and like Nydia Velasquez, one of the other rare Latinas in Congress), but literally unique as being the first and so far ONLY sisters to serve in Congress.

Linda Sanchez, partly because she represents a solidly Democratic district and partly because of her own personality, is a more liberal Democrat than her sister. Loretta grew up with more to prove, as an older sibling, and I think it is reflected in her more conservative attitude, shaped by a greater need for financial security than social activism. They both make clear that the older siblings had a rougher time and were raised with a more traditional philosophy, but by the time Linda was growing up this was somewhat relaxed and Linda, from an early age, recognized that there were inequities in the world and that becoming a lawyer was a path towards solving those inequities. She was encouraged to become a lawyer by her older sister, but Loretta had imagined Linda using her law degree more practically, getting a higher paying job. Instead, Linda went into labor law and became a union organizer. And she was kick ass in pushing for labor reforms. When a new Congressional district was created in Southern California, Linda decided to run for it...and won. She started as the longshot, as a young Latina, but when she proved so effective that she rapidly became the frontrunner, she became the target for attacks by all the other campaigns in the primary. I get the feeling from her description in the book that this may have been one of the toughest things she had faced: a concerted attack from several other fellow Democrats.

And yet she won. I think this shows the strength of the Sanchez family, that they could turn not just one, but TWO long-shot runs for office into wins.

Like Loretta, Linda Sanchez also proved her worth within the first year, though in a more locally focused way.

One of the smaller cities I represent desperately needed funding to renovate and repave its major street, which was old and falling into disrepair. For ten years the city had been begging its former congressman to try to help get federal funds for the roadwork, but he never secured any real funding for the project. Well, when the time came, and [Congressman] Obey asked for projects, that was one of the projects I submitted. It made it into the omnibus bill, and the omnibus bill passed. That meant that after being in Congress for only six weeks I had gotten it the funding! And wheras before the city had been skeptical, I now had a victory to show them, and it was grateful.


And then, of course, Linda had to face the same obstacles that Loretta had to face as a rare Latina in Congress as well as a freshman. She relates how she frequently felt like asking people (I assume she never actually did!):

Excuse me, but did you just blow me off because I'm a woman, because I'm Hispanic, or because I'm young? Could you let me know?


Linda Sanchez has some of the best lines in the book, the lines that make me think, "YES! That is how I always wanted to say it!" For example:

Sometimes I've encountered Republicans who seem to believe that people are poor because they choose to be poor, and that this wouldn't be the case if they just worked harder. Well, that isn't true. A lot of people start with advantages that they don't even consider to be advantages and I always point this out when I get into fights...

I believe there are two kinds of people in this life. There are those who succeed and attribute all the success to themselves--"I've got mine, you guys have to get yours." And then there are those who succeed and not only credit the teachers who cared, the mentors who helped them, the bosses who took them under their wing, and the parents who pushed them to do well, but also the resolve to help the next group of people who are struggling. For the life of me, I don't understand those who fall into the former category, because the belief that they did it all on their own is just nonsense.


And right there a major FALSE Republican talking point falls by the wayside.

Dream in Color is interesting on several levels. It may not be high literature in style, but it is a very readable, straightforward description of what life is like for Latinas in America and what people can accomplish if they work REALLY hard and take calculated risks. It also provides very interesting perspectives on how Congress works...and doesn't always work. It also provides a much needed counterpoint to the hostile and nasty Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric we hear all too much, instilling a respect for hard working immigrants of ALL ethnicities.

Overall Dream in Color is a quick read, and, though perhaps not immensely profound, is very inspiring, particularly now when Democrats seem a tad demoralized.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

The Economy

I recently highlighted actual facts and figures showing that in pretty much every possible way, from job growth to keeping the deficit down to stock market performance, the economy does much better under Democrats than Republicans. I want to look a little more closely at why.

What makes an economy strong? It isn't money circulating among the top 10% which is how Republican trickle down economics (aka "Voodoo Economics") believes it works. Nor is it money pouring into the biggest corporations, again the way Republican policies assume. What makes an economy strong is money circulating among working and middle class Americans and small to medium sized businesses. THOSE areas are the backbone of our economy. Our economy doesn't grow because a CEO can buy another yacht, big business can outsource more jobs, and BP and Exxon/Mobil make massive profits that go to bonuses for their executives. Our economy grows because you and I are buying what we need for our families, local Green Energy projects are being built, and small and medium sized businesses are growing and able to hire another person or two.

Republicans favor the BIG GUYS. The top 10% get the tax cuts...and Capital Gains cuts...and tax loopholes. You and I can't take advantage of Off Shore Banking. The BIG GUYS can. So they get richer and we get poorer under Republican policies. In essence Republicans are redistributing wealth to the richest Americans. And Republicans favor BIG BUSINESS, the companies that outsource jobs and buy from overseas. This all means money circulates among fewer people and jobs flow overseas. THAT is what Republicans do.

Democratic policies favor working and middle class Americans and small to medium sized businesses. Democratic policies get money circulating among a much wider ranger of people and businesses. This keeps more money circulating within the United States' economy and favors job growth here in America. Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to redistribute the wealth, but that is BS. Democrats get money flowing more equitably through our economy while Republicans actively redistribute the wealth to the very richest, following the same failed trickle down policies that they have since Herbert Hoover.

Here's the proof. Looking at Average Annual Income growth and comparing the average for Republican (in red) and Democratic (in blue) Presidents, under Democrats average annual income grows for ALL AMERICANS. Under Republicans average annual income goes up for the very rich and barely at all for most of us:



Under Democrats the money is flowing through a much wider range of the economy than under Republicans and THAT means the economy is stronger under Democrats than under Republicans. You and I have more money to buy stuff or save or invest or pay off debt under Democrats. Under Republicans only the very rich can do these things. Under Democrats MORE PEOPLE can spend, save, invest and pay of debt than under Republicans.

The circulation of more money (for spending, saving, investing, etc) among more people means better stock market returns: Average rowth in the stock market under Republicans average (excluding Hoover, to be fair) is 4.3% growth...Democratic Average is 9.6%.



Note this: the BEST STOCK MARKET GROWTH has been under Clinton and Obama. The WORST stock market declines (excluding Hoover) were under Nixon and the younger Bush. Clinton and Obama have been the best Presidents in modern American history for stock growth.

What else comes of Democrats getting more money circulating around a larger segment of the American economy rather than Republicans favoring the very rich and companies that outsource? More job growth. There is more real job growth under Democrats than Republicans...without fail!



Look at that graph. EVERY Democratic President has done better than EVERY Republican President since Hoover in creating jobs. You want job growth, vote Democratic. And job growth means yet MORE money circulating through the American economy.

More jobs and more money circulating through the economy means a higher GDP under Democrats. Average Growth in GDP: Again Democrats match or beat all Republicans



You can't argue with these numbers. Better job growth and better growth in GDP and a fairer average annual income growth under ALL Democrats compared with ALL Republicans.

Then we come to the deficit. Again Republicans repeat the lie over and over that Democrats run up the deficits. Well, the worst deficits in American history were under three names: Reagan and two Bushes.



Republicans do FAR more deficit spending that Democrats. I think there are three reasons for this. First, because there is better economic growth under Democrats (see all the above graphs) there are more tax revenues. Second, because Republicans give massive tax breaks to the rich, they reduce the money coming in. Third, at the same time Republicans are cutting down the income to the government, they favor massive spending programs like expanding the military, building a fence around the country, expanding surveillance, invading Iraq...all things that cost massive amounts of money. Democrats favor programs like infrastructure, education, alternative energy that not only are cheaper than invading Iraq but actually in the long run can save money and/or create jobs. So Republicans have a weaker economy, cut income and increase outflow. Democrats produce a stronger economy (thus increase tax income), don't give massive tax breaks to the rich and spend money more wisely in ways that better help average Americans.

The net result is a stronger America under Democrats than Republicans by almost any measure you can think of.

Look, any one of these things could be coincidence. But ALL of these measures of economic strength doing better under Democrats compared to Republicans over such a long period is really hard to argue with. DEMOCRATS DO BETTER.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

The Bottom Line: Democrats are Better for the Economy

Daily Kos has the following graph illustrating the bottom line for economic growth: Republicans are lousy for the economy and Democrats are better:

Economic Growth:


What Bush did:


What Obama did:


This isn't isolated. If you look at almost any economic indicator, it will do better under Democrats than under Republicans. No matter how much they lie about it, Republicans can't deny the actual numbers show that they are terrible for the economy compared with Democrats.

Let's look at the bottom line for most people: JOBS. Job Growth is always better under Democrats than Republicans:



Growth in the stock market: Republican average (excluding Hoover, to be fair) is 4.3% growth...Democratic Average is 9.4%.



Note this: the BEST STOCK MARKET GROWTH has been under Clinton and Obama. The WORST stock market declines (excluding Hoover) were under Nixon and the younger Bush.

Average Growth in GDP: Again Democrats match or beat all Republicans



Average annual income grows for ALL AMERICANS under Democrats, while it mainly grows for the very rich under Republicans:



You can read more about the fact that the American economy does better under Democrats than Republicans here.

Even fiscal responsibility, that thing Republicans like to claim, is really a Democratic value as proven by the numbers:



Republicans do FAR more deficit spending that Democrats.

I will never understand why ANYONE would vote for Republicans. They are more corrupt, run up higher deficits, and are worse for the economy than Democrats. Why vote Republican? Ever?

Sunday, October 24, 2010

State by State Roundup of Endorsements

Here is a nearly 50-state round up of endorsements, both my own and other groups. The organizations I draw from, in addition to local groups, are VoteVets.org, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Planned Parenthood, Indigenous Democratic Network, NARAL, Progressive Majority, Democracy for America, and Sierra Club.


SPECIAL FOCUS: VoteVets.org endorsements (American Veterans running for office)


Click below to check out the best candidates running in the following states: (for more endorsement lists, including some local endorsements, visit The Ballot.org)

VIRGINIA: (my endorsements)

Virginia 5th Congressional District Progressive Voters Guide


WASHINGTON, DC

Washington DC SEIU 32BJ


PENNSYLVANIA: (my endorsements)

PA Progressive Voters Guide

VoteVets.org Pennsylvania Endorsements

Delaware County, PA

Pennsylvania 6th Congressional District: Includes parts of Lehigh, Berks, Montgomery and Chester counties.

Pennsylvania State House District 154


MINNESOTA (my endorsements)

Minneapolis Voter Guide for the Reality-based Community


TEXAS: (my endorsements)

Planned Parenthood Houston and Southeast Texas

Texas 21st Congressional District: Includes Travis, Kerr, Real, Bandera, Kendall, Comal and Blanco Counties

Texas 15th Congressional District: Includes Hidalgo, Brooks, Duval, Live Oak, Bee, Jim Wells, Karnes, DeWitt, Goliad, San Patricio, and Refugio Counties.

Texas 10th Congressional District: Includes Bastrop, Lee, Burleson, Washington, Austin, Harris, and Waller Counties.

Houston/Harris County, TX

Austin/Travis County, Texas Endorsements


WISCONSIN (my endorsements)

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin PAC


COLORADO (my endorsements)

Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter Endorsements

Colorado Wins Endorsements

El Paso County, CO

Denver County, CO

Larimer County, CO

Douglas County, CO

Arapahoe County, CO

Boulder County, CO

Another Boulder County, CO list


ILLINOIS (my endorsements)

Planned Parenthood Illinois

SEIU Illinois

Illinois 14th Congressional District

Cook County, IL

Coffee Party-Naperville IL


ARIZONA (my endorsements)

Planned Parenthood Arizona Endorsements

Arizona Voter guide – Propositions 100s-300s


MICHIGAN (my endorsements)

Michigan Public Employees SEIU Local 517M

Planned Parenthood Michigan

Oakland County, MI Progressive Voter Guide


FLORIDA (my endorsements)

Planned Parenthood Florida Guides

Orange County, FL

Pinellas County, FL

Tampa/Hillsborough County, FL

Tallahassee, FL Progressive Guide


NEVADA (my endorsements)

SEIU Nevada Endorsements

TOIYABE, NV CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB


CALIFORNIA (my endorsements)

California Propositions

California's 11th Congressional District: Includes San Joaquin, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.

Sierra Club Ventana Chapter Propositions Slate

Courage Campaign Progressive Voter Guide

San Leandro, CA Progressives

Northern Solano Democratic Club

Riverside Local Elections


SOUTH DAKOTA: (my endorsements)


MONTANA:

NARAL Pro-Choice Montana


OKLAHOMA (my endorsements)


ALASKA (my endorsements)


WASHINGTON STATE (my endorsements)

NARAL Pro-Choice Washington 2010 Endorsements

UFCW Local 1439

Pierce County, WA

Snohomish County, WA

Seattle/King County

Olympia/Thurston County, WA


KENTUCKY:

Kentucky AFL-CIO


GEORGIA (no endorsement)

Georgia Sierra Club Endorsements

Georgia AFL-CIO 2010 Endorsements


IOWA (my endorsements)

2010 Endorsements (Sierra Club Iowa Chapter)

Planned Parenthood Iowa


KANSAS

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Kansas and Mid-Missouri


MISSOURI

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Kansas and Mid-Missouri

Sierra Club Missouri Chapter Endorsements

NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri 2010 Endorsements


ARKANSAS:

Arkansas Blog: AFL-CIO 2010 Endorsements


INDIANA:

Indiana AFL-CIO


OHIO:

SEIU 1199 Ohio Endorsements


WEST VIRGINIA

SEIU 1199 West Virginia Endorsements

Planned Parenthood West Virginia


SOUTH CAROLINA:

Planned Parenthood South Carolina


NORTH CAROLINA:

Planned Parenthood North Carolina

Progressives/Democrats for Forsyth, NC

Wake County, NC Democrats


MARYLAND:

Planned Parenthood Maryland

SEIU 32BJ - Maryland


NEW YORK:

Planned Parenthood New York

Rockland Women's Political Caucus


MASSACHUSETTS:

NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts

Massachusetts Sierra Club

Planned Parenthood Massachusetts


VERMONT:

Planned Parenthood Vermont

VT-Chittenden County Guide


NEW HAMPSHIRE:

New Hampshire SEIU Local 1984

Planned Parenthood New Hampshire


MAINE:

Equality Maine

The Maine League of Young Voters - STATEWIDE Edition

The Maine League of Young Voters 2010 - PORTLAND Edition


DELAWARE:

Planned Parenthood Delaware Endorsements


HAWAII:

Planned Parenthood Hawaii

Sierra Club of Hawaii


ALABAMA:

Planned Parenthood Alabama

Alabama AFL-CIO Endorsements

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Pierce County, WA Endorsements

Derived from local endorsements, AARP, Democracy for America, Indinegous Democratic Network, and Progressive Majority, here are my endorsements for Pierce County, WA

US SENATE: Patty Murray
US CONGRESS CD 8: Suzan DelBene

State House - District 26: Sumner Schoenike
State House - District 27: Laurie Jinkins
State House - District 28: Tami Green

Pierce County Auditor: Julie Anderson
Pierce County Prosecutor: Mark Lindquist

For more information on candidates, please go here:
http://moleinfoblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/washington-state-endorsements.html


Ballot Initiatives:
I-1053 NO

I-1100 NO

I-1105 NO

I-1107 NO

I-1082 NO

I-1098 YES

Ref Bill 52 YES

SJR 8225 YES


King County Ballot Measures

Proposition 1 YES

Charter Amendment 1 YES

Charter Amendment 2 YES

Charter Amendment 3 YES

Seattle Public Schools Levy YES