U.S. to end funding for UNESCO

The Obama administration said it would end funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (see UNESCO Palestine decision sets off U.S.-U.N. confrontation, Los Angeles Times, October 31, 2011).

Admittedly I have not been keeping up with politics very much these days but this item saddened me. So I am sending the following to my U.S. Representative and Senators:

I do not often write politicians and this message was not sent as a response to some organizational email blast. However, I was troubled to learn in the news that the United States will be withdrawing financial support for UNESCO as a result of the admission of Palestine to the organization. I understand that this withdrawal of financial support was triggered by U.S. law forbidding such payments to organizations that recognize Palestine as a state. First and foremost, I find any such law to be anti-democratic and archaic. If most of the world would like to recognize Palestine and include the Palestine people in the workings of an international organization whose mission is to "contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture," then it is wrong for the United States to pull support for this mission. This is even more misguided when you consider that UNESCO helps promote American values under an international umbrella in places where an American one might be resented or unwelcome. It is morally indefensible to undermine the good work of UNESCO all over the world and to use our funding of it as political leverage in the regional affairs of the middle east. Second, I believe that the United States should be supporting the rights of the disenfranchised people of Palestine and their right to participate in organizations such as UNESCO.

Please work to repeal the laws that prevent the United States from fulfilling our moral and financial obligations to UNESCO and then support Palestine's entry into UNESCO.

The Election

"I don’t think there’s many of us that are under any sort of delusion that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to take us all the way to the promised land, but they are going to stop—they’re the tourniquet that’s going to stop the bleeding."

—Michael Moore on Democracy Now!, October 31, 2008


"Obama has been a moderate government interventionist... His advisers are smart and intellectually flexible so he is able to respond quickly to what is going on."

—Paul Krugman on NPR's Fresh Air, October 21, 2008

This year I will be voting for the Democrat Barack Obama, but I will be voting for him as I have voted for Democrats in the past, as a 'lesser evil.' There is no question in my mind that Obama and the Democrats will be much better than the Republicans. The Democrats' policies on the economy, the environment, health care and the role of government are clearly more progressive. I believe Obama will also be an improvement in an area of international relations where the U.S. has lost its credibility and sympathy after the attacks of September 2001.

Yet when I vote I will vote with a certain amount of disquietude because I believe our electoral system is profoundly anti-democratic and I worry that my voting, even for a lesser evil, is a vote that helps legitimize this political system. I realize that we do live in a democracy — but it is only a democracy to a certain point. Yes we are able to vote and speak critically and favorably of any politician or policy. That is a necessary ingredient for democracy but that alone does not make our system democratic. I know that there are places where people can't vote in a meaningful way and they can't speak out against their government and we are better off than people who live under such conditions.

But in order to be truly democratic, all political constituencies need to be fairly represented. Unfortunately that does not happen in our system primarily because of two reasons: money and the two-party system. In order to be considered a 'serious' candidate, one needs to be well funded. The mainstream media won't even discuss a candidate's policy proposals, no matter how well thought out, if they don't have access to large sums of money. This clearly puts the interests of poor in the back seat. Shortening the election time-frame and requiring public airwaves to be used to provide free access to political discourse would be a couple ways to reduce or remove the influence of money. I'm sure there are others. An even more dramatic reform that could transform our system into one that is more democratic is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This would allow people to vote for the candidate that they believe in with out worrying about the "spoiler" effect. I believe this would embiggen the political discourse and improve the representation of various political viewpoints. Here is a video that explains Instant Runoff Voting:

The practices of the unscrupulous money changers

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

... in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order: there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments, so that there will be an end to speculation with other people's money; and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, inaugural address, March 4, 1933

Perhaps some historical reflection is needed during this time of turbulent financial markets in which politicians hastily try to shore up the economy with government funds. Listening to this speech today is inspiring yet alarming at how history is repeating itself. I am not saying that the economy is now in the same state as it was in 1933, but it seems clear that those confronting the current crisis of capitalism lack a vision. Republicans rejected the $700 billion bailout as a "slippery slope to socialism," but if it is, it is the wrong kind of socialism because it doesn't go far enough.

What are we reading? Amazon tracks America's political book buying

Amazon.com has a page where you can see a color-coded map showing which states are buying "red" or "blue" books. You can then click on a state to see their favorite political books. Currently, with all the interest in Sarah Palin, Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down is at the top of the list. They have realized that not all books fall into such simple categories so there is also a list of purple books. Maybe the should start a list of books that Palin wanted banned.

Sarah Palin: an agent of change?

Although the McCain campaign presents her as an agent of change, I am beginning to see similarities between VP nominee Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. The New York Times reports, "Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance" (Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes , 9/13/2008). Like Bush she has replaced professionals with friends and she fired people she has personal issues with (including her ex-brother-in-law).

The Times also reports that Governor Palin and her top officials have used personal e-mail accounts for state business and that her staff discussed whether this could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records. Congress has uncovered that early in Bush's first term millions of messages in the White House went missing while using a private Republican Party e-mail system.

Despite posturing as an advocate for an open government, Palin's administration has effectively prevented a marine biologist at the University of Alaska from access to e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. Palin has stated that global warming is not man-made and has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered. The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science.

And in a couple of other similarities to Bush, The Times reports, "Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show." Not unlike Bush who prefers his residence in Crawford, Texas.

It should be noted that George W. Bush also presented himself as an agent of change and, to the degree that he has changed things, it has been for the worse. The Daily Show did a nice piece juxtaposing Bush in 2000 and McCain in 2008 which you can watch here (the best part is at the end of the video).