Diving into deep waters in re: millenials and IR

Yesterday Daniel Drezner raised the question of how millenials (meaning folks in their 20s like me) think about international relations.  There are some really thoughtful responses in the comments, mentioning things like the interconnectedness of our current world, the massive sea of information in which we swim, how a huge growth economy that precipitously tanked on us impacts our lives, and how we see a role for the United States to play in the world without necessarily resorting to hyper nationalist imperialist misadventures. 

I want to respond to the piece, but I want to do so by altering the premise a bit.  Like one, if not more, of the commenters, I was a student of both history and political science.  But then, influenced by a Quaker educational setting and my own personal struggles for social justice, chose to pursue graduate work in international conflict resolution, rather than straight up international relations.  Because jobs in conflict resolution are just a wee bit scarce, I've ended up working in international education, while continuing to do very local level activism at the same time.  And in these past few years, an insight that sparked as an undergrad has become a core belief:  we cannot separate the local from the global.  Or, in other terms, the distinction between domestic policy and foreign policy is purely academic.  As I see it, such a division doesn't actually exist.

This insight first came to me, somewhat unexpectedly, while writing my senior project for my history major oh so long ago.  Through a someone circuitous path, I ended up writing on the domestic political constraints that impacted U.S. decision-making in the Korean War -- a war that could have ended two years sooner had Truman not been afraid of appearing soft on communism at home.  Today, we see that a faulty immigration system impacts our relations with our immediate neighbors.  Our unwillingness to provide healthcare to our citizens evokes scorn from some of our allies.  Because we have a massive array of ill-conceived farm subsidies, we dump unneeded foodstuffs in foreign markets and crush local farmers' livelihoods, all the while calling it aid.  We can't actually cut the bloated military budget because people need the jobs.  The United States lectures the world on human rights, and yet contains fully a quarter of the world's prison population -- jails filled predominantly with young black men serving time for petty crimes in an attempt to keep our longstanding racist history going full steam, but with less overt fanfare.

As I see it, the lesson for my peers is that we must recognize that our domestic politics have impacts on our foreign relations -- beyond the obvious choices in fighting wars, managing economic crises, or cleaning up oil spills.  It is arrogant and hypocritical to claim to be a shining city on a hill so long as children are going hungry, the elderly can't afford their medicine, and it is legal in about 30 states to deny employment and housing to people just for being gay or transgender.  We have enduring cycles of poverty and repression in this country, based on racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism and all manner of xenophobia's other children that we consistently fail to address.  My family came to this country 400 years ago, and yet I was the first of the line to get a college degree.  It wasn't until my grandfather's generation that my someone in family was even able to earn a steady paycheck, and yet my father has been unemployed for at least two years.  It's still far too likely that if you're born poor in this country, you'll die poor.  In our society, you either have privilege or you don't.  And if you don't, getting it takes work.  And that's an understatement.

In my mind, politics should be about the pursuit of justice.  We have a moral obligation to pursue it domestically and abroad, concurrently.  I don't just mean justice in a legalistic sense.  I mean justice in its fullest context -- social, cultural, economic, political, legal, and everything else.  But that isn't happening in our national politics.  Turn on cable television any night of the week and you'll find blabbering dunderheads of both the left and the right nannering on in a language that isn't the least bit powered by a brain.  Rather than focusing on issues that actually matter, politicians and commentators have spent fully two weeks debating where exactly one single mosque ought to go.  Stephen Walt points out that this kind of blubbering reminds him of the political discourse of the Weimar Republic -- not exactly high praise given what happened next.  If this is the kind of leadership my forbears want to demonstrate to people of my generation, then I'm afraid I must protest.  

Thus it is my sincere hope that my generation embraces a politics -- domestic and international -- rooted in justice that honors our fundamental humanity.  It is incumbent upon us to act where our predecessors have failed, namely to address some of the huge systemic problems we face.  I don't have any grand illusions about what can or might be achieved before my eventual demise, but I do know that we have to do better.  That we have to march on.  That we have to realize that justice is peace and that peace is justice.  And finally, I know this:  we damn sure better get to work. 

Sunday news: here's your sign edition

Ah, Sunday, that joyous day when we celebrate all that is special to us.  When we relax in a hammock sipping lemonade.  When the air temperature is hot enough to melt the skin off a tomato.  Here's how we shall mark this splendid occasion.  

• Health insurance companies:  the root of all that is evil.  And I should know, my mother works for one.
• Oil companies:  the back-up plan for the root of all that is evil.  Are we noticing the #capitalismfail yet?
• The U.S. Senate:  where evil goes to lay its eggs.  And, ya know, starve people in the name of grandstanding.
• The United States continues to pretend that the government of Somalia exists in some meaningful way, and that poorly trained and equipped peacekeepers can help this imaginary government.  Meanwhile, people suffer.  Perhaps it's time to end the ruse, no?
• DC was struck by a minor earthquake on Friday, and will continue to write news articles about it for at least two weeks.  Panic?  What panic?
• And, finally, Hillary Clinton:  "the godmother of 21st-century statecraft."  Orly?

 There you have it, kids. 

Sunday news: out of character edition

There's been much to report on lately, and I'll freely confess to being largely absent.  This, in part, has been due to not really feeling the need to add to the din lately, and also due to my being in the thick of things.  I'll have a few reflections on those things later.  Meanwhile, a few snippets of interest.

• I rarely find myself in agreement with Our Lord and Savior the Kristof, but in this case, I agree that you must go see the film Budrus, about the nonviolent struggle against the boundary fence in a small Palestinian village.  I have faith that a nationwide nonviolent movement is possible in Palestine (and don't necessarily think it means lining up all the women).  And, I had the pleasure of seeing this film at the Capitol a few weeks ago, followed by a panel featuring Ayad Morrar and Reps. Keith Ellison and Brian Baird.  See the film when it's in your town.  You will be moved.
• A Kansas City barber (nice town, btw) sums up Obama's image:  "That man has a hell of a workload, and Bush left a hell of a mess. I like what he's doing. But I can't feel it." 
• Maybe it's summer fluff, but I still suspect that Sonia Sotomayor will be my favorite justice.
• In spite of all the myriad issues that people have on their minds, I'm increasingly convinced the DC mayor's race is going to come down to education.  Here's the WaPo's take on Gray's plan.  I generally support the age 4-24 approach to education that Gray backs, but share concerns over how to pay for it.
• And while we're at it, what's the role of literature in the fight for justice?  One opinion on To Kill a Mockingbird.

Finally, I want to plug two events this week at the DC Council (Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW):

• Monday, 4pm, room 500:  Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary hearing on ICE's Secure Communities Program.  The Council has already unanimously blocked MPD's planned participation through emergency legislation.  Come here advocates speak about why that rejection should become permanent.  DC would be the first jurisdiction to reject participating in the program, which requires mandatory immigration checks.  More details are here.
• Wednesday, 2pm, room 123:  Committee on Aging and Community Affairs roundtable on DC's recent LGBT health report, which notably failed to include information on transgender folks in the District.  My fellow members of the DC Trans Coalition raised a stink over this last week, and a hearing was scheduled 48 hours later.  How's that's for effective advocacy?  Details are here. 

Sunday news: pesky kids edition

Every now and again there's a month of Sundays (or two) wherein I don't read the news religiously, because other things are going on that require my attention.  Sometimes that's my bunny, sometimes my garden, sometimes some sort of community event/thingy, and sometimes it's just my bed.  In any event, here are some of the stories that benefited from my attention this morning.

• Texas politics:  still weirdly entertaining.
• Burma:  We're not tyrants anymore cuz we totally changed our clothes!
• Annoying little twits who make less money than me party at bougie places I can't afford.  Oh, and they work at the White House, so they'll be powerful annoying little twits their whole lives (and they probably went to fancy schools and are bankrolled by their daddies).  Oh, and they wear pleated pants.
• A friend tells me there's lots of space for a wind farm in central Illinois, and the white noise might help him sleep better.  But why do that when overconsuming fossil fuels is so much more fun?
• Somebody please glue me to the BBC on Thursday.

And that's that.

Sunday news: useless NYT edition

Nothing really jumped out at me today in the NYT, except for one magazine piece.  Somehow I'm just disinterested in the Iraqi election or the latest gossip on healthcare reform.  Anyway, here goes.

• In said magazine piece, a discussion on the importance of teachers in educating students, and how to make those teachers teach better, as apparently it's teaching is the most essential ingredient in education, and not necessarily funding or testing.  Who'da thunk?
• DC mayor Adrian Fenty is a corrupt little whiny-pants who funnels huge sums of government money to his friends.  At least Marion Barry was corrupt but personable.  This is why you should vote for Buster, who is currently preparing his mayoral campaign. 
• It amuses me to no end that an article on political buffoonery features a photo of Michael Steele.
• A piece on how Toyotas aren't inherently death traps, which is why I still hope to buy another one in the next year or so, if I can raise ye olde cash.   

See, the news is much more fun when you ignore the things that people are panicking over. 

Sunday news: not a lot happened edition

It's Sunday morning!  A glorious time when all red-blooded Amer'kins sit around and read their local rag(s), immediately before or just after returning from their massively hypocritical suburban megachurch.  Looks like I do it too, just without the church bit (listen, I make it to a Friends meeting about once a year...).  

Anyway, aside from the latest greatest earthquake (hope everyone you know is ok!), it doesn't look like there's a lot going on this week.  Here's a recap:

• Absolute tenure corrupts absolutely, but maybe it makes for decent art?  (Seriously, how is that article so long?)
• There's trouble on Mt. Olympus, as the gods may well be idiots.
• Nurses:  Is your home entirely surrounded by two feet of snow and you can't for the life of you figure out how to get to work?  Well, fine, be inconsiderate like that, and WHC (across the street from your humble blogger) will fire your ass. 
• I still contend that belated justice is better than none at all. 
• A curious (to put it mildly) development in historic preservation.
• Time to make another trip to the National Gallery.
• The U.S. Senate is still dysfunctional.
• Race is still a major factor in southern politics.  Really?

How did I miss this?

In light of today's pathetic little rumble between our dear president and his nearly departed former adversary, which of course is as meaningless as it is unentertaining, I stumbled upon a little gem while doing my daily homage to my google reader, which had me in hysterics. I realize it came out in September, but I guess I missed it. Anyway, enjoy The World's Most Unruly Parliaments (as discovered on another Passport post about another unruly parliament).

Sunday news: we're all gonna die edition

It's Sunday! That means there's a decent chance I've read the morning papers (as emailed to me). What do I find today? Death, mayhem, poverty, destruction, and no hope of anything ever getting better, ever. And these newspapers wonder why they're losing business.

Here's a recap:

• The economy = teh suckage.
• Texas will probably continue to be run by a crackpot, who was just endorsed by Sarah Palin. If my left arm was endorsed by Sarah Palin, I'd cut it off.
• The U.S. Senate is a shit show, but maybe Evan Bayh will run for president and save us all.
• If you're in DC and get on the Metro, it could kill you, and won't have any money to send your mother a decent house plant.
• People are stealing from non-profit bookstores that ostensibly raise money to promote literacy programs for poor urban youth.
• The U.S. Senate is still a shit show, but Rahm Emmanuel is keeping Barry O from becoming the next Jimmy Carter, so it's all good.
• The president orders up his robust policy offerings at some bland hoity toity DC restaurant, which explains a lot.

Well now, this was kinda fun. Maybe I'll do it again sometime. ;)

Maine queer activists critique gay marriage crusade

Via Bilerico (an often unlikely source), a video you should watch/listen to. Fair warning: it's about 30 minutes. But it offers queer perspectives that are often left out of mainstream discussions.

For another poignant non-mainstream queer perspective, check out the DC Trans Coalition's recent statement on hate crimes in the District.

Max Baucus can kiss my pansy ass

This grand non-compromise plan isn't worth the paper it's written on. To paraphrase from The American President, what good is health care reform legislation that does virtually nothing to reform healthcare?

Also, I want more than just some good old fashioned market choice, especially if these ridiculous "you're not insured" taxes are going to be foisted onto people.

Now let me make myself clear: I support healthcare reform. Hell, I support turning the whole healthcare system on it's head, shaking it down, and rebuilding it in Sweden's image. This proposal, however, simply doesn't cut it.

Is there some drive up window wherein I can order 535 legislators with integrity and fortitude?

Amoral healthcare reform bordering on immorality

This article from today's Post pisses me off in about 14,000 different ways. And, as many of you know, I'm not a morning person. The issue here is mandated coverage, particularly for young adults (like me).

As has been known for some time, the plans progressing through the idiot Congress mandate that everyone has healthcare. Excellent. Good idea. It's both true and necessary.

However, since the public option has been scrapped in the name of political expediency and Rush the Addict Limbaugh, this comes down to an unfunded mandate to the taxpayer.

Anybody other than me notice that unemployment is up and incomes are down lately? No? Have you read a newspaper/blog or heard a radio or seen a TV? No? Then you have no business writing or voting on legislation. Now isn't the time for an unfunded mandate to anybody.

Since I try to avoid national domestic issues like the plague on our houses that they are, I don't have any data available that I can readily cite. What I do know is this: more of my friends are unemployed than there used to be. Many of those that are employed scrape buy. If my job didn't provide insurance, I, like many, simply wouldn't have it. A mandate from Congress will not change that reality. And yes, it's great that the Medicaid cap on income would go up to about $14,000 a year. But what about the multitudes that make more than that (even by a few dollars), but don't have access to employer supplemented insurance?

Say you live in DC and make $20,000 per year, and you don't have a car, so living outside the city isn't much of an option. Rent and utilities will likely eat up at least half, if not more, of that income. If you ate cheaply, you could maybe get by on $100 per month, if you have no dependents. Factor in another few hundred in bus fare, etc. Everyone needs to buy clothes periodically, but assume you rely on thrift stores. That all would come to roughly $15,000 of the 20. Now, where exactly will the $200/month for a baseline government mandated insurance plan come from? Yeah, you could do it, but you could save virtually nothing and your budget would have to be planned to the penny, and you couldn't survive any contingencies (say, a month being unemployed). Even a college graduate making roughly $32,000 per year, but say carrying $20,000 in debt, is going to find it phenomenally challenging to buy insurance, regardless of the cost. A tax break is a nice idea, but those usually come once a year, and after a purchase has been made. Where does the cash come from in the meantime?

My social security deduction already goes straight from my payroll to my grandparents, after a quick stopover at the Treasury. That's fine with me, as I like my grandparents. But to force young people to buy insurance to keep insurance companies' costs down as they pay for my parents' coverage isn't really ethical. If I had wanted to pitch in on the repair costs for my stepfather's recent broken ankle, I could've done that on my own.

Without a public option, any healthcare reform bill is immoral, particularly if it shoulders more of the costs onto people with the least means. How about we cut the disgustingly high salaries of healthcare execs, or something more socially equitable? The people that claim a public option would fund abortions or provide free healthcare to illegal immigrants (heaven forfend!) or haul my grandmother out and shoot her (I defy anyone to even try that -- you'll lose) need to shut the hell up. And I've yet to buy the argument that reform is somehow unconstitutional. But the plans as they're taking shape are immoral, and for a looney lefty like me, that's entirely unacceptable.

EDIT: Had I read to the bottom of the Post's daily email before sending my blood pressure through the roof, I would have discovered that at least one senator's views comport well with my own. All we need are 99 more.

Sponsor an executive today... You'll be saving a lifestyle

This was just too good not to pass on.



Goes along with my earlier rants about bailouts quite nicely, I think.

Hat tip: Armchair Generalist.

My own bailout request

Now that my attitude has chilled slightly from my last rant on the subject, I have but a simple request: please include in the bailout legislation a federal moratorium on using the words "Main Street" and "Wall Street" in the same sentence. [Also, my student loan debt is still soul-crushingly high, but looks miniscule when compared to $700 billion. If I incorporate as the Bank of Buster, can I get govermnent money by claiming my debt as a bad investment?]

Frankly, this whole mess is so mind-numbingly confusing to anyone without a deep background in high finance that even a theoretically well-education person like me is left thinking, "So what's the real problem here? How did this happen? And why the hell do all us ordinary folk have to pay for it?" I still have no answers to these questions, and the legislation will move forward tomorrow. A great big thanks to all you legislative types for reaching out to your constituents. [Oh wait! MY congressperson can't vote! Of course...]

Meanwhile, in trying to wrap my head around the problems associated with this whole mess, these pieces (here and here) have been helpful on this particular morning. If I could remember where I found a well-formed argument about why the bailout is wholly unnecessary in its current incarnation, I'd link to that too. You'll note that I'm basically linking to conservatives here. This is because I agree with these guys on this point. We (the average schmuck) are spending a boatload of Chinese held dollars to bailout idiots who made bad decisions. And we get nothing.

Let's go mansion squatting

So yours truly went on a business trip that kept me very, very busy. Trying to catch up on news upon my return, I've realized that apparently I've decided to buy a few failing banks with $700 billion of my hard earned money. Apparently, you have too.

I'm fully convinced that this is a sound decision, and it won't bite me in the ass later. Further, I can do it all by myself, with no one looking over my shoulder, because I know what I'm doing. Or at least Hank Paulson thinks so.

And why am I so sure of myself? Because I hear that France did it once, and look how it's worked out for them, what with their roaring economy and all. If only I could get the execution right...

Hrmm... perhaps this isn't such a good idea. How's about another idea or three, Hank:

• The top billion or so executives at all these major companies should lose the15 mansions (only 1 or so more than John McCain has) they each own. Much like homesteading in the nineteenth century, the government should grant squatters rights, on a first-come, first-served basis. Think of the fun of having Sooners on Long Island!
• All these Mercedes that line up at these crisis meetings of pitiful executives should be distributed among the urban and rural poor. Of course, I'll get one too, since I thought of the idea. A cute black convertible is my style. Don't forget the heated seats.
• Since we work so close to each other, I think I'll roll up to your office one day this week with one hand open and the other holding my exorbitant student loan bills. Since you're so generous with all your Wall Street friends, surely you could spare some change for me.
• Oh hey! The Single Moms Working Three Jobs of America Society just called me, and said they would like to know how they're feeding their children this week. Think of all the corn-based, pasteurized, processed McDonald's food you could shove down their starving throats with $700 billion. Hell, you could probably even make them meals of fresh fruits and vegetable for the whole damn year with that amount of cash. Just sayin'....

Now, if I didn't already have a decent enough reason to vote for Barack Obama this year, I now know the full meaning of his saying "you're on your own."

Thanks, Hank.

EDIT: Never trust spam.

A word about ENDA

On a very personal level, I'm incredibly disturbed by the way in which the recent developments around the long-awaited Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) proposal has moved forward in the House. Somewhat surprisingly, the traditionally gay-centered LGBT movement has actually taken a stand against Barney Frank and demanded that transgender-inclusive language not be removed from the legislation. Yet mainstream media has been largely silent on this issue, and when they have spoken out, it has been with tremendous disrespect.

The Washington Post editorial of September 28 entitled "A Civil Rights Law" provided a disturbing image of how the Post editorial board -- which has historically been an avid proponent of civil rights -- has an exceptionally flawed view of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act bills presented in the House of Representatives last week. The most striking disappointment rests in the line, "Delaying passage of ENDA, which was first introduced in the House in the mid-1970s by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), until the transgender community changes enough hearts and minds would be a mistake."

To suggest in any way that any minority must convince legislators that the Constitution of the United States protects all Americans equally runs counter to the very basic rights upon which this nation was founded. Indeed, many groups have engaged in long-running struggles for the recognition of their rights. Yet surely, after now centuries of these struggles, it should be unfathomable to ask yet another group to work for "nearly 40 years" in order to have their rights recognized in law. Surely we have reached a point in our history wherein the basic rights of all Americans, regardless of gender expression and identity or any other classification, are inherently recognized. The fact that a so-called advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights like Rep. Barney Frank believes that is it appropriate to yet again sideline the very transgender people whom he claims to support is simply another example of alleged civil rights promoters abandoning their constituents for political ends.

The Post should retract its statement, and Rep. Frank and other ENDA sponsors should stick to their commitments to the transgender community, or else both should renounce their claims on real civil rights advocacy.

To learn more, visit the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Global politics quicky

Because I'm too lazy too actually analyze things, I give you a bulleted list.

• One of these days, I too shall appoint myself as President Prime Minister, or perhaps "Mr. Speaker the President of the United States."
  
• Ban Ki-moon may have actually expressed an emotion regarding the rapidly descending spiral that is Darfur.
• Dear Mahmoud: It's ok to be gay in New York, and a Jewish man wants to love you. (Hat tip: Daniel Drezner -- too good not to miss.)
  
• Burma: Far scarier than we thought. Several protests with monks and Burmese Americans hit DC this past week, including one I witnessed yesterday. Now people seem to think that threatening to boycott a sporting event might change something? Color me unconvinced.
  

And briefly on the homefront.

• DC: No water to fight fires on the high ground.
• ENDA: Still discriminatory. Those of you with actual congresspersons, please do something.
  

American exceptionalism, the Constitution, and Madeleine Albright

This past weekend Two weeks ago, I had the chance to explore the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. I also recently finished Madeleine Albright's The Mighty and the Almighty. Both the center and the book place an emphasis on the concept of American exceptionalism, and the more I mulled over each, the more I realized their claims in this regard are related. I personally find this notion of exceptionalism to be problematic -- sometimes it is troubling, egotistical, and imperialist; and other times the concept seems right on point, at least in theory.

The Constitution Center's main argument (to the extent that a museum can have an argument), seems to be that the United States, being the first rights-based democracy on earth that has endured into the present, has had a tumultuous relationship between the values enshrined in its founding documents and the reality of the practice of governance. In other words, based upon a simple reading of the Constitution, one would expect that the U.S. would have a far less discriminatory history and encompass a far more egalitarian society than it does. Because this country is the home to these documents, it is inherently held to a higher standard, as far as justice and human rights are concerned, than most every other nation. Thus it is the documents, and not how various elements of our government have adhered to them, that makes the United States unique, and living up to those documents has become our national challenge.

Albright, obviously, takes a different focus but ends up with a few similar points. While she focuses much less on founding documents and more on foreign policy activities, she comes to a similar conclusion about how the U.S. should act in the world that the Constitution Center arrives at for the domestic front. Namely, because the United States chose to make promoting respect for human rights a foundation of its foreign policy during the Carter administration (of which she was a member), and because much of today's current foreign policy is informed by the idealism of the Wilson and FDR administrations (remember that neo-cons started out as frustrated liberals), the U.S. has a special obligation to ensuring that human rights are protected around the world. She points to the old (yet resonant) rhetoric that the United States is to be a "shining city upon a hill" and though she critiques some of the underlying assumptions that come along with that, in the end she seems to agree with the core premise.

Yet it is these very arguments that make American exceptionalism such a problematic concept. I do tend to agree that certain documents and certain leaders in our nation's past have seen to leave us with a national charge to better ourselves and our fellow human beings. However, our very failure to realize the dream of these core principles at home and the hubris and hypocrisy with which we sometimes conduct our affairs abroad (under administrations of all political persuasions) makes me wonder if it's not just a pile of malarky. Perhaps the the United States, writ large, isn't terribly special. Maybe we were just blessed with a series of particularly visionary leaders who had enough rhetorical skill and popular appeal to ingrain themselves in the national memory, to the extent that one exists. If this is indeed the case, then the U.S. isn't terribly exceptional at all, and may well just be an ordinary country that is just wealthier and larger than most and thus more noticeable. But that potentially cynical perspective still fails to fully answer the question, because failure to live up to an exceptional charge does not necessarily mean that the country and its society (which admittedly is not a unitary, monolithic creature) is not exceptional, but just struggling along a particularly tough road where perhaps the end is still not in reach. This is view is more accepting of a history of oppression at home and arrogance abroad, as these elements become natural obstacles on a path to some enlightened future.

There are certainly other views on American exceptionalism beyond the two I just laid out, but clearly, neither of the ones I have here can really satisfy the questions of 1) is the United States fundamentally unique and 2) if so, why and if not, why not? If we've failed to live up to expectations, that doesn't mean that something better does not lay ahead, and that we should just give up. Likewise, if this is just a particularly difficult chore with which we've been tasked, there is too much room there to excuse too much of the past that are a disgrace to morality and basic human dignity.

I thought both the book and the center were quite well done. Nonetheless, I would have liked to see a greater framing of these particularly complex complexities in both places. The question of exceptionalism gets to the very core of this country's identity (to the extent that social and political constructions can have identities independent of individual perceptions). I certainly do not have the answer to these questions, but they do make for a particularly challenging discourse and precipitate an incredible range of thought.

[Note: I initially started writing this at the end of my trip, but ended up neglecting the draft and the rest of this blog while I dealt with some particularly challenging work events. Hopefully I'll be back up to pace soon. Otherwise, just blame my quietness on a slow, hot summer.]

More on the recent but brief growth of Shrubbery in Tennessee

Sometimes the world is just a little bizarre. President Bush's main event yesterday, after scaring the elderly and infirm at a local hospital, was to engage in a roundtable discussion on health care with Governor Phil Bredeson, who is, at last check, a Democrat. However, Bredeson also notes that he's unconvinced about changing the tax code and is especially unenthusiastic about the potential cuts to federal reimbursements for charity care. Additionally, the Community Research Council in Chattanooga has reported that few local residents would actually benefit from the Bush plan.

Meanwhile, outside the convention center, there was a group of Bush supporters and a smaller group of protesters, as I mentioned previously. While the supporters were allowed to stand outside the convention center, the detractors were sent to another side of the building. Apparently free speech zones are now limited to particular types of free speech. Tennessee Guerrilla Women have a few other tidbits about the protest.

A full rundown of the day's events is here. Some slightly better coverage, including links to video and audio, are available via the Chattanooga Times Free Press. The video is especially funny. All photos of the visit, though, seem to be especially obsessed with Air Force One. Probably because most people are surprised that such a big plane could land at such a little airport without running over a few houses along the way.

There's hope for my home town!

This afternoon, our beloved President visited Chattanooga to speechify about his plan to give poor people health care by cutting the taxes they're already too poor to have to pay. I don't know what all he said yet, but I do know that a daring gang of lefties in Chattavegas risked stoning and other forms of punishment that the city unleashes upon suspected liberals and protested across the street from the convention center where he was speaking.

As someone who spent a couple years peacefully counter-gay-bashing people on the Scenic City's streets by making out with men across from street preachers, I wholly condone today's act, and am really pleased to see greater left wing activism in that area.

The organizers of today's event claimed that they didn't expect their presence to change policy on health care or on the war in Iraq. Rather, they wanted to demonstrate that Tennessee can't be taken for granted as solid Bush territory. According to the Tennessee Independent Media Center, over 100 Tennesseans have died in the Iraq war. Additionally, there are over 800,000 uninsured residents in the sate.

For pictures, click here. Stay tuned for additional coverage of this incredibly pleasing event.