Happy II.

We interrupt the depressing stuff for photos of my parent's new dog. There ain't nothing wrong with that.

CNN is reporting that the US will now pledge an additional $315 million dollars to tsunami relief. That bring the pledge total to $350 million dollars.

Congress still have to approve the new appropriation, but this is a very welcome development. However, CNN also pointed out that Bush missed a huge opportunity by waiting until people got pissed before he boosted the outlay.

Still, these folks need cash. Any funding source - particularly a $350 million one - is welcome.

Please do what you can to add to this.

Worthy Causes
Doctors Without Borders
World Food Programme
International Red Cross
Oxfam

Be The Power readers have now given $90 to tsunami relief efforts. That's more than I could have afforded even when I was working. Thank you so very much.

Who will be the one to give the last 10 bucks to reach my goal? Only time will tell...

Worthy Causes
Doctors Without Borders
World Food Programme
International Red Cross
Oxfam

MoveOn.org has launched a campaign pressuring the US Government to increase their level of aid to the tsunami-stricken areas. As of now, we have only pledged $35 million. That's a lot of money to you and me, but consider this: we spend that in seven hours in Iraq. Can't we afford to throw a couple hundred million bucks that actually help people including those in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia?

My buddy Alan has done some reporting on this issue for the Boston Globe and he said last night that the immediate monetary need is billions of dollars. Again, that's a lot of money, but it's not tens of billions or hundreds of billions. I think we can afford to kick in a much higher portion of it that $35 million.

Anyway, here's the "Tell-A-Friend" email from MoveOn.org:

Dear friend,

The tsunami in southern Asia and Africa may be the worst natural disaster of our time. More than 116,000 lives were wiped out within hours.

Rising to this challenge is at the heart of global leadership, and the world is depending on us. The U.S government can lead billions of dollars of aid into this relief effort, if it chooses. Americans are generous and ready to step forward, but the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration have made a weak initial contribution to the effort -- first offering $15 million and then $35 million when they came under pressure. Clearly, we can do more.

Let Congress and the President know that Americans are supporting strong leadership on this relief effort, at:

http://www.moveon.org/tsunamirelief/

Thanks.

Also, please don't forget to put your money where your mouth is.

Worthy Causes
Doctors Without Borders
World Food Programme
International Red Cross
Oxfam

Everyone knows about the death and devastation wrought by this week's big tsunami.

I feel sort of overwhelmed and sad about the entire thing and really powerless to do anything about it. For a couple of reasons.

First, I haven't seen any information about volunteering to help with the relief effort. I'm unemployed now, so if there's a charter flight to Indonesia, I'll go. Sign me up. If you know about something, let me know.

Second, I'm unemployed, so it's hard for me to make any financial contribution. That's where you come in. I have a small, but dedicated following here on Be The Power. Do me a favor and throw 20 bucks towards a relief organization or two, will ya? Drop me an email or post a comment to let me know you gave. I'd like to hit at least 100 bucks in donations from this here blog.

Worthy Causes
Doctors Without Borders
World Food Programme
International Red Cross
Oxfam

Next Year's Christmas Card.

Lookit! New Be The Power photos from Christmas 2004! My family is totally the coolest, best looking family ever.

Also - Martin and I rule at mini golf. He rules slightly more because he won the inaugural Myrtle Beach 90 (90 Holes in 1 Day). Curses.

Former Red Wings Center Igor Larionov retired for good last night after scoring a goal in his farewell exhibition in Moscow. The game ended in a 6-5 victory for "The Professor's" squad of Russian-born NHL stars. A whole mess of current and former Red Wings played for both the Russian team and the losing "World" team. Steve Yzerman scored twice in his first game against top competition since his terrifying eye injury in last season's playoffs.

This is why I miss hockey so much. No one is flying over to Japan for Ichiro's farewell game. They certainly aren't selling the joint out and filling it with politicians, including his ex-teammates (ala Slava Fetisov). And no Hall of Famers ignoring their overwhelming fear of flying to go to be there.

Hockey has traditions of this sort of thing among its players and its fans. For decades, we have formed a close-knit community that values its history and the players who shaped it.

First, from this Red Wing fan, a thorough tapping of my stick on the ice for you, Mr, Larionov. You have provided me with many great memories.

Second, please, bring back hockey. I'm going nuts over here.

My buddy Garrett is very confused about whether Dean would be a good DNC chair. He's probably got more insight on this than I do, as he's know the Governor for a long time.

Garrett is convinced that Dean has the right vision for the party, but he's very concerned that Dean can't necessarily make the right calls on staffing and organization. I think this is a very important aspect to add to the debate about how to choose our new "organization man." Read Garrett's thoughts here.

We keep losing terrorism as an issue because we don't have an actual position on it. Seriously - think about it.

George Bush's position on terrorism is simple: We gotta kick some ass. We got attacked, so now you can be damned sure we're going to hit back at anyone who even
looks at us funny. We will kill our enemies.

In such stark terms, I think that position makes most liberals - at least anti-war liberals - pretty uncomfortable. But it's important to recognize that is a rational reaction, a legitimate course of action, and a solution to the problem that is pretty easy for most folks to understand.

Liberals don't have a coherent response to terrorism that could be described in any of those ways. We're sort of vaguely anti-Iraq War, but in my experience our opposition is usually couched in specific ways the specific operation will fail, not in a coherent anti-terrorism strategy. "Saddam didn't attack us," while true, isn't really enough because it does not offer an affirmative response to the terrorist threat.

But what does the liberal response to terrorism look like? Frankly, I don't know. I don't have all the answers. I think it would include at least a few things:

• If you attack us, we will hit back.

  I have been struggling in recent years to square my pacifism with the notion that 3,000 Americans were murdered in one of the most brutal ways imaginable. I still shed tears over what happened on September 11. If we are to win the hearts and minds of anyone, we need to have a strong response to terrorists that kill innocent people. We will hunt you down. We will kill you. We are prepared to face Judgment Day with that stain on our souls.

  I really think the last bit there is the important aspect we can add to the "Kick Ass for America" sentiment. Whenever George Bush talks about war, I never feel like he has any idea of the gravity of the situation. We've killed thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis since 9/11. Their blood is on our hands. It is not a proud time to be an American. But in some cases, I believe we must be ready to be stronger that our enemies. I'd love to not have to kill them. But I'm not sure that can work.

• Our goal must not be to break terrorists, but rather it must be to fix terrorism.

  Simply put, we owe it to ourselves to figure out what strategies actually reduce terrorism practiced against Americans (and all peace-loving people, for that matter.) I think at this point, we can safely say that invading a corrupt Arab dictatorship DOES NOT reduce terrorism. We must be laser-focused on those strategies that DO reduce terrorism. And if that means subsidies for every unemployed young male on the West Bank, so be it.

• The CIA must reform. Without intelligence, we cannot stop terrorism before it happens.

  Too much of the recent squabbles over reforming out intelligence system have been over who controls what pot of money. There has been virtually zero discussion of how dismally the Community has performed recently. We absolutely should have had operatives within al Qaeda years ago. Without them, we cannot expect to know about terrorist attacks soon enough to stop them. Think about it - the CIA has been looking for Osama bin Laden for 3 years and hasn't found him. This is unacceptable.
  

Beyond that, I'm not sure what else goes into the liberal response to terrorism. Please use the comments to add your thoughts.

Additionally, I'm not sure how we sell it to the American people. "Kicking ass for America!" is a damned compelling ideology to compete with. We need three words that convey our entire platform. However, liberal's dismal use of language is tomorrow's blog post.

Howard Dean, The Future of the Democratic Party.

Thanks to Democracy for America and DC for Democracy, I had the honor of sitting just 10 feet away from Gov. Howard Dean on Wednesday as he laid out his vision for the future of my Democratic Party.

What he said wasn't rocket science. Stand tall for progressive values. Cultivate those values into activists and candidates in every race in every state. But he's the only one out there right now making a specific case for specific goals for the party. As Dean himself said, it's not the direction of the party that's important -- it's the destination. And Dean has a vision for the destination we should be working towards.

And that's why I am endorsing Howard Dean to be the new Chair of the DNC. We need a destination for our party. And Dean is the only one willing to share the process of getting there with all of us. He made a very public speech to an audience of activists. Have you heard nary a peep from any of the other prospective DNC Chairs?

Didn't think so.

Anyway - you can read the speech for yourself if you want.

My favorite line:

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe.

I would add Michigan, New York, and California to that list. ie - Damn near everywhere.

Garrett writes about Malcolm Gladwell's new book, Blink. Essentially Gladwell argues (and Garrett interprets) that people can only choose what they can easily understand. No matter how nuanced your actual preference might be, you're always going to go with the guy who's got a snappy explanation.

What this means for politics is this:

1. We cannot trust opinion polls to tell us what people want because the people literally don't have a clue what they actually want.
2. We must develop better and easier to understand language in order to tease out the more complicated preferences I believe the population has so that people feel comfortable making actual choices based on those complicated desires.

Confused yet? Read Garrett's post for more.

Krugman reminds us today that Social Security, while an important issue to keep an eye on, is merely a serious issue seeking a serious and sober solution. Specifically:

Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

You could find that kind of money if you wanted to. But Bush doesn't want to. Why, you ask? Good question:

[V]ery little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Let the record show that when I work on a House race, the candidate wins. (cf. Kildee, Dale; 1996 and Herseth, Stephanie; 2004). So I'm off to Louisiana tomorrow to win another one for the DCCC.

Why am I the only Democrat who seems capable of winning anything anymore!?