One Turkey To Rule Them All

Just when all hope was lost. Just when there was no light left in the building. Just when I feared I would have to close the Diaries due to lack of interest, my Muse returned to remind me that I still have important things to say ... snarky things to say ... about the gall and the stupidity of people.

And for that, I truly thank The Night Owl (or, as I think I may have to start calling him, The Gift That Keeps On Giving).

Mr. Barry has been giving away turkeys at the Union Temple Baptist Church for the several years now. It's a very popular program in my Ward 8, which is the most economically depressed area in my fair city. You will not hear me breathe one bad word about this program. The holiday season is especially hard on those who are struggling and anything to help make their Thanksgiving better is alright in my book.

But I do have to call out incompetence.

Last year, the demand far exceeded the supply and Barry promised such an oversight would never happen again. This year, people who wanted a free bird had to sign up ahead of time to get one. Once all of the people listed got theirs, whatever was left would be handed out to whoever showed up. (Or at least that's my understanding of how this was supposed to have worked.)

Well, this year's giveaway hit another snag that left people frustrated and upset. All because that evil Giant wouldn't deliver the birds.

First of all, I must apologize to the Ward 8 community for Giant’s failure to provide timely support to the Community. It’s simply pathetic and incomprehensible to me that a multi-billion dollar corporation, like Giant, would take a position that would deprive children, seniors and other adults of food for the Thanksgiving holiday.

But, you see, the fact that the turkeys were a no-show wasn't Barry's fault. Except for that part where it was.

D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), well known for his annual turkey giveaway in Southeast Washington, had no Butterballs available for residents Tuesday morning after he failed to pay Giant food stores $26,000 for their delivery.

In a news release, Barry said he had $17,000, falling short by $9,000, but promised Giant that the rest was coming. " ... Giant insisted that the full $26 thousand dollars be received by the store on Monday and that without full payment, the Company would not delivery the birds to Barry," a news release read.

Look, I know people are suffering. I know that some residents in Ward 8 depend on this annual event to put a decent Thanksgiving dinner on the table. But this whole mess could have been avoided. It's not like we don't know when Thanksgiving is going to happen from one year to another. (Not like that blasted Easter.) It's the fourth Thursday of November, for Pete's sake! Mr. Barry had plenty of time during the year to raise whatever funds he needed to ensure that his turkey giveaway would happen on time and without issue. The fault lies on him, not on Giant.

(Giant, by the way, did deliver some of the birds with the rest coming today, even though they still haven't been paid for them.)

I have a suggestion to my fellow Ward 8 residents. Stop putting your faith in Marion Barry. He will fail you constantly and consistently. Next year, if you need some extra help putting food on the table, make a trip out to Landover where you're far less likely to walk away empty-handed.

(Cross-posted on The District Diaries)

Humor from the Political Circus...

From West Coast to East Coast, we've got crazy ass shit going on... so much so that I think it no longer qualifies as political theater and is now into straight on circus antics in both the modern and Roman senses ;-)

Gizmodo has this story about what happens when you leave off a letter from a bit.ly address in a political tweet:

This is not the endorsement you are looking for.

Then in NY, we've got Handles McSideburns:

and the Madam who thinks she can fix the Metropolitan Transportation Authority because at her escort service she was able to provide "on-time and reliable service."

And this is all without even touching on the Tea Partiers... The Rally to Restore Sanity can't come soon enough. Is it any wonder that I've been reveling in the original cast recording to Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson:

(Yes, I can bring almost any topic back to Broadway ;-)

Oh, and a bonus intentional bit of comedy:

Yes He Can! Can't He?

The case: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. The result: the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Well, at least until the Obama Justice Department inevitably appeals Judge Virginia A. Phillips' injunction, that is. What a topsy-turvy world! A Republican group scoring an important victory for gay rights? The Democratic administration fighting to keep the deeply unpopular status quo?

What the hell is going on here? Admittedly, matters more complex than I'm making them sound. The Log Cabins are generally out-of-step with their party. Yet, arch-bogeyman Dick Cheney favors gay marriage. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is bound by precedent to uphold the current law of the land. Yet, liberal-savior President Obama is against gay marriage.

Again, what the hell is going on here? Politics, of course. Regarding gay marriage, the Log Cabins, who have little sway, are hardly the voice of their party. And Dick Cheney has nothing to lose now. Obama, on the other hand, made what is most likely a politically motivated statement while campaigning, to appeal to the center, and now has to stick to it.

I doubt Obama actually believes gay marriage is a bad thing, and I think most Americans, be they for or against gay marriage, agree with me. Obama has already condemned DADT. He even pledged to end it this year. Yet, if Obama holds to a politically expedient position, what does that say about him? Will Democrats applaud his so-called integrity?

This is Obama's moment. I'm no fan of his, but I hope he lives up to his promise to end DADT. Obama has a choice: politics or principles. Now that he has the chance, let's see if, yes, he can make the right decision.

Update: Andrew Sullivan makes the same points, more eloquently of course.

[Mirrored on Cultural Minefield.]

Exhuming Malthus

Here we go again.

Slate has a good article on the forever-interest in the ideas of 18th century economist Thomas Malthus, particularly in the realm of fiction, specifically with regard to Jonathan Franzen's Freedom. To describe Malthus' central idea on one foot: human population grows exponentially, while natural resources grow arithmetically. The former will eventually outstrip the latter, leading to a population bomb that will detonate and obliterate us all.

No matter how many times Malthus is refuted, his ideas linger. Ultimately, Malthusians of all stripes are defined by their suspicion, if not hatred, for civilization. Malthus was in the news recently, thanks to the Neo-Malthusian nut who took hostages at the Discovery Channel earlier this month. His inspiration? A novel: My Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn.

It almost makes you miss the influence of Karl Marx.

(Mirrored on Cultural Minefield.)

I Never Claimed to be a Democrat...

But, this is why I won't vote for republicans... Their Fall Agenda sounds like a bunch of bull malarkey to me. On one hand we want to pay close attention to the rights of the individual. On the other hand, we want to take away the freedoms of some individuals, because we don't agree with who they choose to love.

The people who are out of touch with America are the Congresspeople of this great nation. All of them need to be put in check and remember the thing that makes this nation great: The fact that we were formed as a nation to protect the unalienable rights gauranteed by our Creator. If you can't remember what those are, they are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. (or better yet look for yourself: Declaration of Independence . So, get out of my way as I presue happiness.

And just in case you have actually forgotten what the Constitution looks like, I provided a link for that. And just a gentle reminder, the judiciary branch exists to keep you guys and gals from pissing off too many of the people, while you continue to right legislation that is not only unconstitutional, but also just mean. As Jon Stewert asked last night: "Are We Run By Assholes?" "Indeed."

Crab Mentality And The Potential Implosion Of The Republican Party

I was reminded of how easy it is to cook crabs after reading this news article at CNN.com this morning.

It seems that the Republican Party is still embroiled in a "civil war" between the Republican Status Quo (RSO) and the Tea Party (about which, I'm sure, some of my fellow contributors are ecstatic but that's another post for another day) even though the Primary Election is over. In some cases, such as Delaware and Alaska, the RSO candidate lost. It's usually at this point that the party rallies 'round the Primary winner to help them secure whatever post it is to which they are aspiring. But not so this year.

Now, it's one thing to actively work to defeat someone if you are a member of the opposition, but it is quite another to actively work to defeat someone if you are a member of the same party after the Primary Election results are in. You idiot RSOs had nine months to do all of your sniping, mud-slinging, and character assassinations against these upstarts. And your candidate lost. Now is the time to rally behind the Primary winner. Now is the time to do all you can to ensure that you capture the majority seats in Congress. Now is the time to make your party relevant.

But no. RSOs can't seem to get past the insult of being rejected by the voting members of their own party and feel the upstarts still have a price to pay for their impertinence.

Sharpen those crabby claws, baby. It's almost supper time.

(Cross-posted on The District Diaries)

Adrian Fenty's Spectacular Defeat

Was it Michelle Rhee? Fenty's aloofness toward the black community? His hubris with regard to his reelection campaign? The heavy whiff of nepotism that accompanied his appointments?

Megan McArdle thinks gentrification was largely to blame for Fenty's loss:

When it became clear that Fenty was going to lose, there was a lot of shock going around in the circles I live and work in--which is to say, mostly white professionals who live in DC's gentrified, or gentrifying, precincts. After all, there's little question that things have gotten much better under Fenty, and not just for white people. The truly abysmal schools are being reformed, parks are being built, crime is slowly improving, the city is getting streetcars desired by almost everyone except the folks who live directly on the tracks . . . so why did voters just kick him out?

I don't think you can quite explain it by saying that Fenty's modestly corrupt (too-expensive contracts have gone to friends, though those friends seem to have mostly done the work very well). Marion Barry has remained quite popular here through much more serious violations, and in general, the corruption now pales in comparison to the pervasive corruption that has been uncovered in multiple city agencies, which long predates Fenty's administration.

Most people agree that this is ultimately a proxy battle over gentrification. It's all rather nebulous, because of course Vincent Gray hasn't campaigned on rolling back gentrification. He seems to support all the services Fenty has expanded, with the possible exception of the school reforms. Instead, the theme of his campaign--and the more generalized opposition to Fenty--has centered around respect and process.

She continues:

Gentrification represents a real loss to people who can't afford to stay. They've lived in the city a long time; they have networks of friends and relatives, and institutions like churches, that are built around proximity. Why should they favor a city that provides more services--and then sees real estate prices spike, so that they can't afford to stay around to enjoy them? There are probably a number of voters for whom the status quo is vastly preferable to a situation where Fenty manages to improve the schools enough that middle class voters start a bidding war for homes in the district.

Certainly for the teachers and the taxi drivers--both groups huge opponents of Fenty--this is about real economic loss and changes to their jobs that make them less pleasant.

But no one comes right out and talks about the fact that they are now worse off; instead they talk about how Fenty has run roughshod over council process, or that he hasn't respected some group . . the teachers, the council members, "the community". So our mayoral election has become a debate over which groups in the city are worthy of respect, rather than what concrete improvements can be made in peoples' lives. Because in a city dysfunctional, there are no changes that make everyone better off.

I don't know whether the voters who selected Vincent Gray understand at some level that as long as the quality of life in the city continues to improve, gentrification will continue apace. Vincent Gray didn't force them to consciously make that choice; he made vague promises about things like inclusionary zoning which are supposed to keep more affordable housing in the district. These initiatives will not work, but at least they sound hopeful. And the people who voted for Gray are willing to hope because they think that he, unlike Fenty, respects their concerns.

The implications of her argument, if correct, are provocative. It only follows that a segment of D.C. believed things have been getting better, yet actively voted against progress. In fact, a recent poll showed that most Washingtonians thought the district was heading in the right direction. The same poll showed Fenty trailing behind Gray.

I think McArdle's argument is persuasive, but Fenty's bafflingly inept reelection campaign certainly played a large part in his loss. The Washington Post's surprisingly good analysis, published today, is the best argument for this view.

But I think McArdle nails it with her prediction of what to expect from Mayor Gray:

I don't know how good a mayor Gray will be--he seems like a nice guy, but nice guys often have a hard time getting things done in fractious cities, and his campaign platform is pretty empty of actual proposals. I think this is probably a tragedy for the utterly dysfunctional school system, but I doubt that Gray is going to do much to roll back the other changes, like the change in the taxi fare system, that have made the city a better place.

And for good or ill, I doubt he'll do anything about gentrification. Inclusionary zoning has, as far as I know, proven an excellent way to subsidize home building in poor neighborhoods, and to provide below-market housing for relatively middle class retirees, but it has not, as far as I am aware, ever succeeded in keeping a neighborhood's economic mix from changing. The forces altering DC right now are like a runaway freight train. In 2000, the population of DC was 30% white and 60% black; by 2006-2008, those numbers were 36% and 54%, respectively. Meanwhile, the percentage living below the poverty level dropped from over 20% to under 18%. On a demographic timescale, that is lightning fast. If gentrification keeps up at that pace, the lines are going to cross sometime in the next 10 to 15 years.

Vincent Gray could throw his body in front of the freight train and it wouldn't even slow down. The change in the city may stop on its own; no trend continues forever. But the city is now good enough that many affluent people who used to flee to the suburbs now want to live here--and their presence is attracting non-government services which make it attractive enough to lure still other people to follow them. Unless Gray starts an active campaign to make things worse, the core issue that seems to have animated this campaign is largely out of his hands.

Progress marches onward? Washingtonians can only hope.

(Mirrored on Cultural Minefield.)

Would Fenty Run as a Write-in?

If today's primary election goes as predicted, D.C. Democrats will select current Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray as their candidate for the upcoming mayoral election. And, as we all know, in the heavily-Democratic District of Columbia, the candidate who wins the primary election is essentially guaranteed an electoral victory in November. But is this still the case?

Two weeks ago, the campaign of Mayor Adrian Fenty lost a challenge that would have allowed independent voters (those with no party affiliation) to vote in the upcoming primary election. The campaign's reasoning was as follows: if D.C.'s new elections law allows first-time voters to register as Democrats at the polls, then non-affiliated voters should have the same opportunity. However, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics disagreed with that interpretation, which means that over 70,000 independent voters (nearly 17% of the electorate) will be left out of the September 14 primary. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and other minority-party voters that represent an additional 8% of the electorate will similarly be left out of the decisive vote.

It's easy to glean why Fenty was so concerned with getting independent voters out to the polls for the primary. The highest numbers of registered independents are located in Wards 1, 2, and 3; the Mayor's main base of support in the city. The lowest numbers of independent voters are in Wards 5, 7, and 8; where support for the Chairman is strongest. In the last 2006 mayoral primary, 106,000 Democratic voters came out to the polls. The possibility of permitting as many as 70,000 additional voters to come to the polls would have been a game-changing move so late in the primary season.

So what now? If Gray goes on to win the primary as predicted, would Fenty seriously consider mounting a general election challenge as a write-in candidate? Polls show that D.C. residents already perceive Fenty as being arrogant and aloof, so any backlash that might come from mounting a write-in campaign may be somewhat blunted, especially if the primary election is close. Further, while there really isn't any available polling data on the preferences of D.C.'s registered independents, the ward breakdown suggests that Fenty likely has a significant level of support among those voters. In addition, despite over $1.3 million in expenses in the last month, the Fenty campaign still had $809,000 in cash on hand as of September 7. Interestingly, Fenty had a similar amount of cash on hand at this point in his 2006 campaign when he was running well ahead of his challenger, then-Council Chair Linda Cropp. Still, the cash advantage is sizable compared to the Gray campaign's $443,000 in reserves.

The "just results" theme of the Fenty's campaign has been highly successful in heightening the public's perception of city services and quality of life, but gains in those areas have not necessarily translated into support for the Mayor himself. Instead, Fenty has focused going back to his original grassroots campaign, knocking on doors, and speaking with voters to get people out to the polls. Apparently, some in the Gray campaign are worried about just such a plan. But if Gray prevails in the primary as expected, Fenty is basically left to either support his challenger or mount write-in campaign.

Write-in campaigns are a mixed bag in D.C. since they require a huge amount of campaign resources to educate voters and a high level of intensity among supporters. Former Mayor Anthony Williams ran a successful write-in campaign in the 2002 Democratic primary, but that move followed problems getting enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot and not his underlying level of support. Last election, Republican Carol Schwartz's write-in campaign to retain her at-large council seat was moderately successful but still failed in a three-way vote between GOP candidate Patrick Mara and independent Michael A. Brown, who ended up winning the seat. In this year's mayoral race, the D.C. Republican Party is not fielding a candidate and has lined up solidly in support of the incumbent Mayor. If a groundswell of GOP voters, Fenty Democrats, and independent supporters are willing to come out in November to support a write-in candidacy, the Mayor might actually have a shot at retaining his job. It's a big "if", but we'll find out tonight.

Image provided by: Wayan Vota with Creative Commons License 2.0

I Think I Need a New Eyeglass Rx...

...because I just read this:

President Obama said Friday that if the midterm elections become a referendum on which political party has the most effective agenda to improve the economy, rather than a decision on its current state, "the Democrats will do very well."

And if the midterm elections become a referendum on which political party has the juiciest (and gayest) sex scandals, it will be a Republican landslide. Unfortunately for the Dems, the midterm elections will be a referendum on three economic issues: the financial and auto bailouts (this being the first election since), the stimulus bill (ditto), and unemployment. Oh, and health care.

Also, this is funny:

Obama highlighted several new economic proposals this week, including business tax breaks for research and investments, that Republicans have said are designed chiefly to appeal to voters this campaign season.

Republicans, please. Targeted tax breaks that purchase discrete and organized blocs of voters? Your lily-white consciences must be scandalized by the very notion.

A Religion of Peace

Greetings, fellow 100MC-ers. Never one to be subtle, I'll eschew an introduction for my inaugural blog post and instead lob a piping hot potato onto your laps: Islam. Can you hear the ominous pipe organ chord in the background?

Back at my solo-blog, I asked "What does it mean to be a religion of peace?" My two examples were Islam and Buddhism, and just seeing them named side-by-side makes it clear what a religion of peace actually looks like. The context is, of course, the erstwhile Koran-burning nut in Florida (where most nuts are found, but not grown), and that damned "Ground Zero Mosque" that's been on our lips for weeks now. But what we're really talking about is a narrative about Islam. Just what kind of religion is it? I quote my post:

Am I the only one confused by the current narrative coming mostly (though not exclusively) from the left on Islam? Islam is a religion of peace, in fact "[it] is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace." As long as you don't make a Muslim angry: "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." Both quotes were from President Obama.

A thought experiment: I announce that I'm planning on burning a pile of Tipitakas, to show how intolerant I am of Buddhism. Let's imagine the reaction. How likely would this be seen as the opening act of holy war? How would the worldwide Buddhist community react? Would my stunt garner reactions from General Petraeus and President Obama? Would it even be national news?

I think there's an over-accommodation on the left for the nutty beliefs and practices of Islam that you don't find when the topic is Judaism or Christianity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending those two. But why the double-standard?

I'll leave you with this spot-on anecdote that a friend of mine posted on Facebook:

A reporter once asked an Aussie Buddhist monk what he'd do if someone flushed his holy books down a toilet. He answered, "I'd call a plumber. Those are thick books"

Thoughts?

(PS -- I'll try to be more Tyra next time around....)