What is best Church-State balance?

My Father in law sent me this link from a salt lake city article:

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_7840906

Over several mornings in late 1996, the group delved into the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, exploring the lessons from Mormon scripture and how they apply to modern government...
In the transcripts, Leavitt said he felt an obligation, looking ahead to an easy 1996 re-election win, to use the "blessing" of his popularity to convey a message strong on values.
"I mean, I think that the opportunity I have in January the 6th is to get up and to say something in a form that's big enough and appropriate enough for me to lay down a marker. I think that's going to be done in a little way and a big way, really, with this values campaign. I think that's going to be a big marker, because it's using all the tools of communication and it's going to draw on this trust that's been created by whatever combination of circumstances and personality and just blessing."

The point seems to be that Mike Leavitt's meetings were too much mingling of church-state. The discussion of Clinton as Satan is disturbing, but Leavitt et al could have had that discussion in ANY context and it would have been disturbing. More and more in the Internet era, I favor openness and information accountability to any attempts to regulate speech and language.

I don't get too bothered by these type of meetings. I would rather have a public record of them. The key questions for me are: is he using government to proselytize? Is he coordinating with LDS leaders? Is he discriminating against other faiths? The key questions to me have to with flows of resources and faith tests for employment or government services.

If I were governor and I wanted to have six advisors come in and discuss how the key documents of the enlightenment would affect my policies, would it be any different? I think the separation of church state is about the government not favoring a religion, but not about the banishment of religion from public arenas. I passionately disagree with many religious conservatives, but I want government to model tolerance and transparency. Sometime church-state arguments look to me like a slippery slope towards policing thought and language.

Like, I want MORE atheists in office, talking about how their values effect policy, not more closeted Christians using code language.

Interetsing cross section of voters...

Here is an interesting NPR story about voters...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17668960

Its for listening. Jim and I were talking about how there is this populist anger that merges concern about the economy, health care, and immigration. How a politician wrestles that bull (rides that wave...) may be the decisive factor in the 08 election.

Why the BS rhetoric of bipartisanship infuriates me

I feel like I get into discussions sometimes with Democratic friends, especially the more moderate ones, where they argue that the Democrats have to be "responsible" or something to that effect. For example, not use legislation to change Iraq Policy, use pay-go rules for budget bills, not impeach the Emperor-with-new-clothes, or approve appointees (like AG Mukasey "I don't know if it is torture."). The mainstream media echo this sentiment by idolizing bipartisanship and some supposed halycon days of old when Ds and Rs would "reach across the aisle."

Just three short years ago the Republicans, drunk with their undeserved victories in 2000 and 2004, were threatening to scuttle the filibuster. Oh, if only we had...

A new Campaign for America's Future Report highlights the deliberate obstructionism and churlish strategy of Bush and the Congressional Republi-can'ts.

The Republican Senate minority today filibustered an omnibus budget bill, setting a modern-day record for blocking the most legislation during a congressional session. A new report released today by the Campaign for America's Future details the 62 times conservatives have used the filibuster to block legislation (or force modification of bills) in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year of this two-year Congress, their use of the filibuster in the Senate topped the previous record, reached during the entire 107th Congress.

So, don't give me any of this BS rhetoric about how its incumbent on Democrats to put policy over politics and bipartisanship over hard ball. Its a naive stance. Its unilateral disarming. Until Republi-cant's start behaving, the responsible thing to do is spank them until they change. They are not reasonable. They are little brats.

And they should thank their stars Frist and Rove's drive to abolish filibuster rules in the Senate died.

And I weep that the Senate Dems couldn't have used the same tactics to block Gonzalez's nomination, or Alito, or the military commissions act, or any number of blank check Iraq bills.

Focus the Nation events on Climate Change at Bucknell

Here is the schedule of events, hot off the press...

Focus the Nation, Bucknell University

Schedule of Events

Wednesday, January 30^th. 2008

- 5pm, Campus Theater: “The 11^th Hour”, new climate documentary by Leonardo DiCaprio

Thursday, January 31^st, 2008: Focus the Nation Teach-In

- Interdisciplinary Discussion Panels (Harvey Powers Theater, Coleman): four professors on each panel, all talking about/discussion a specific issue related to global climate change. Panels and participants are:

Session 1: “Obstacles to Change” (8:00 am - 9:22 am)

Raymond (Chemical Engineering): “The Current state of our climate”

Siewers (English): “Philosophy of our relationship with nature”

Buonopane (Civil Engineering): “Building design and energy use”

Kochel/Trop (Geology): “(Un) Control of nature”

Session 2: “Tipping Points” (9:30 am -10:52 pm)

Stamos (Economics) - “When cost becomes prohibitive”

Wilshusen (Environmental Studies) – “When public opinion changes”

Searles (Anthropology/Sociology): “When our behavior threatens an entire people: case study on the Inuit”

Tranquillo (Biomedical Engineering): “When small changes have a global impact: non-linear relationships”

Session 3: “Can we afford not to stop global warming?” (1:00 pm– 2:22 pm)

Shrivastava (Management) - “Overview”

DiStefano* (History) - “Historical Response to Environmental Crisis”

Wooden (Environmental Studies) - “Winners and Losers”

Pizzorno (Biology) - “Role of Climate Change in Spreading Disease”

Session 4: “Motivating Action” (2:30 pm – 3:52 pm)

Grant (Theater): “The role of art and theater in social movements”

Antonacio (Religion): “Our Moral Obligation”

Unal (Economics): “Changing our current political economy”

Hendry (Management): “Responsible Investment/Conscious Consumerism”

- 11am-1pm: Campus Sustainability Celebration (Fieldhouse): Student bands, environmental research posters, nature-related art and humanities expo, sustainable business/industry expo, and more!

- 4-5pm (Harvey Powers Theater): Nonpartisan, intergenerational discussion between leading environmental students and invited elected officials on campus about what the state and country are doing to address Global Climate Change

- 730-830pm (Trout Auditorium, Vaughn Lit building): Keynote address by Andrew Revkin, lead reported on global climate change and environmental issues for the New York Times

Out-of-the-box campaign ideas

Steve and I were chatting at the potluck. I mentioned two sources of ideas for his up-coming campaign.

One is Wellstone Action. They provide a range of trainings and tools for authentic candidates. Next Camp Wellstone sort of nearby is May, in Virginia.

Camp Wellstone
5/9 - 5/11/08		Camp Wellstone: Virginia This Camp will open for registration six weeks in advance.

More about the training:

• Electoral Campaigns: Tools and Tactics for Success
• Citizen Activism: Grassroots Advocacy and Organizing
• Being a Candidate: How to Run and Win a Progressive Campaign

Each track has a distinctive curriculum (see below) taught by some of the nation’s leading experts in grassroots politics and organizing. In each track, we draw from Paul and Sheila Wellstone’s distinctive and innovative approach to politics – something we call the Wellstone Triangle. The three elements of the triangle are: progressive public policy, which lays out an agenda for action; grassroots community organizing, which builds a constituency to fight for change; and grassroots electoral politics, which provides tools for influencing and holding decision-makers accountable.

The other resource is the idea of using community service events to promote a candidate and an issue. Chris Carney did this at least once in Sunbury. I recall in the 06 cycle that there was a PAC making this tactic their central push. A google search now is fruitless to turn up the website. Maybe Jim Buck recalls the specific name. I thought it was ServicePAC.

UPDATE: It was called good works PAC. Site now seems defunct. Here is a Kos diary explaining it: Post.

It would be good to see if they thought it worked and if not, why not?

I thought it would give you good free press, humanize and ground more progressive candidates, and help to uncover new contacts and volunteers as you build a netcentric and grassroots campaign.

Two GREAT net roots projects

Here are two great netroots projects.

First, ten questions... You get to see candidates answer real questions from real voters. Guess who is the only candidate so far to answer all of them... answer below the fold.

Second, TechPresident, a non partisan review of how candidates are using Internet technology to actually promote transparency and participation. You can get more ideas at a blog post on my blog.



Answer: Mike Huckabee

Which candidate do you like?

Susan Mathias forwarded me this little quiz. Its fun!


http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Put your results in comments.

Jordi Puts a Verbal Smack-Down on an Old Lady

At yesterday's Carney town meeting, there were maybe 100 people? He ended up taking about 17 questions. The staff gave the floor to one person by giving them a microphone to speak. There was no order to it. I, among others, had our hands up almost the whole time without getting called on.

So, this one senior citizen, in her own bumbling, bulldozer way, just decides to take the floor herself. Now, Rep Carney sort of invited this by letting a different older gentleman tack on a comment out of turn. The comment ended up being a two minute harangue about the cost of government.

Anyway, this one lady grabs the floor. She cuts in line. And my sense of grade school justice is aroused. Who does she think she is?

Her question:
"I wrote to Bil Clinton about why Rosalyn Carter's staff was so big. And he never wrote me back. And now what are we going to do if that Bill Clinton is there? How much staff is he going to have? And you know how much they paid her staff, Rosalyn Carter's? $600,000."

Dope-slap time.

I realized that Carney's staff couldn't smack her around.

So I took the floor in a bit of civil disobedience and said to her:

"Is that really the most important issue in America right now? Is that we need to focus on?"

She glowered. I didn't care. Score one for Gen-x. And that felt good.

My quick hits on Carney

I think the Carney people could have done more to capitalize on the social capital that was there. 1) ask each speaker to say their name and place of residence. 2) Have staffers get email or phone from each of those people for more follow through and (don't know election laws) pass them to campaign staff for as potential volunteers. I mean that technical school teacher and Iraqi veteran. Come on! he was brilliant! He knew about Enron and California! 3) Ask people to write down their questions on a card, and mail or email. Afterwards compile all unanswered questions and push them out to those people in attendance. 4) Video and YouTube anyone...? Unless they don't want that kind of overlap of message. Maybe they hope he needs to be present as more moderate in some arenas, more conservative in others. That seems to pose risks down the line as being painted as phony. 5) Do these in the evening and work with local groups to have child care so that working

My quick takes:

"American democracy is alive and well. I enjoyed seeing so much aroused citizenry prodding and challenging their representative. Rep Carney looked like he was having fun.”

“People are worried about the border. I understand that. At the same time, I think it is hard to discuss this issue as a politician. A lot of people want the government to break the bank to make an impregnable border. The cost of that would surely make Iraq look like a park clean up in the federal budget. We live in a world of global flows. A fortress America approach will cost us. Brilliant people won’t come to America to learn in our universities. Companies exporting and importing will face higher costs. Tourists won’t come. Isolation weakens us.

Poor Mexicans and Central Americans are not waking up saying “I want to go break US laws today and be labeled an outlaw!” The trade policies we have enacted, including those by centrist democrats like President Clinton, and corporate welfare for US agribusiness a have set off waves of economic turmoil. That turmoil pushes people to migrate to better opportunities. And US companies are all too happy to employ them. What is a tank on the border going to do about that?”

“I think Rep Carney is getting a win-win when he describes the US as the ‘Saudia Arabia of green energy.’ But we need to know more about how federal policy can lead to healthy markets. Coal is cheap. How will green energy compete with cheap black energy?”

“People are fed up with Iraq. Several people demanded Congress defund the war. People cheered when others talked about getting out now and defunding. Rep Carney is cautious to a fault on this. I don’t know if its his own military background, or fear of the ‘weak on security’ label. The naked truth will help him. I think he saw that when people applauded him saying ‘Our troops won the war. The politicians lost the peace.’”

“Guantanamo bay, and all the other illegal and murky detention practices, area dishonor to our nation and a profound strategic mistake. I didn’t get to ask Rep Carney why he won’t help shut it down. Like John McCain said about torture, its not about them (the enemy). Its about us and who we are. We can not try and lead the world as a democracy while we let this rot fester. I wish I could hear Rep Carney defend his lack of action on closing Guantanamo. How can we win a global struggle for hearts and minds while we reek of hypocrisy?”