Event: Election Post-Mortem.

I couldn't post yesterday; I was just too exhausted. I won't post tomorrow either; I need at least a brief break. On election night we hosted a breakfast-at-dinnertime party while the results came in, drank orange juice and ate sausage and potatoes. A loud sound went up at Pennsylvania, then Ohio, and then, when Obama passed 270, everyone freaked out. It was like crowds at the Super Bowl or Lollapalooza, only bigger and better. The champagne flowed and we all went out into the streets, and the news was all about people running into the streets.

* * * * *

Yesterday I was nursing a hangover all day long, but by evening I felt better. I met up with some friends at Metropolis, and we all took a walk. Just to take a walk. To enjoy the unexpected late fine weather and to muse on just how big and momentous this week has been.

So this, then, is my election post-mortem.

It is good that Obama won the election so decisively. Already, this one move has served to bolster our status in the world. The breadth of Obama's support has opened up states that have not been in play to Democrats in decades. The Great Lakes region was united behind a presidential candidate for the first time since 1972. The press has been quick to point out the significance of this election as a civil rights victory; they are right to do so. We should not forget that it is also a victory for Democrats, who have been resurgent since 2006, for the Left, which will (presumably) be better represented by Obama than by it would have been by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, as an emphatic refutation of Bush-era policies of division and marginalization.
And yet... concessions are already being made and it would seem that there is little time to rest on our laurels.

It is also good that the Democrats picked up seats in congress; it would have been better if they had picked up a supermajority. I've commented to a few people in the last several days that whenever one party achieves dominance, things start to go south for them pretty quickly, and I suspect it's because interal rigor and discipline become a liability in a rush to fast action. I believe this argument, and yet it is meant to be a qualification of, not a dissent from, victory as a unilateral Democratic majority.
In the first place, the U.S. is too sheltered from the effects we have on our neighbors and the world at large. There is a pendulum in U.S. politics, but it's motion is strictly determined by a relative understanding of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative." It is fine to consider these differences meaningful, but we needn't consider them objective. While I don't believe the U.S. is definitionally a center-right nation, it functionally is at this time. Our policy needs to move to the left in general to accomodate crises that can only be addressed through action that is both democratically and collectively determined.
In the second place, the horrific damage rendered under the Bush administration, propogated by Republicans and sometime abetted by Democrats in congress over the last 14 years, and often upheld by an inconsistent judiciary, are huge in magnitude and can must be addressed by broad and sweeping executive and legislative action. Given the abysmal performance of our congressional Democratic leaders (we're all thinking of Reid and Pelosi), we need a sufficient "vote cusion" to make action possible. In our current crises, action is necessary, and therefore, Democrats and Independents should hope to see more Democrats in office.
In the third place: The Republican Party of the 2000s is much like the Democratic Party of the 1850s: it is broken. While it still stands upright, it only wreaks damage on itself and those it represents. Today's Republican Party represents not a free market but a fanged market; it represents not American patriotism but American nationalism. The riven Democratic party of the 1800s recovered, and I believe that the Republicans will as well. But first they have to be broken. They have to reconstitute themselves along their original premise of individual liberties upheld at the expense of collective prerogative, of a correspondent expectation of individual sacrifice, and of a government that tries to excise unnecessary intervention. That Republican party, a party recognizeable to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, can contribute to our political landscape. But this Republican party, hateful, angry, alienating, divisive, invasive, unscrupulous, and increasingly regional: it is walking around broken. It is wounded and wounding, and as such, this broken party needs to be further broken. It needs to be crushed. Only then can it recover.
Now the Democrats didn't get a supermajority, but they picked up enough support to pursue an agressive progressive agenda with executive support. I do hope they use that strength with rigor and discipline. But make no mistakes: I hope that they sustain and increase it, and above all else, use it.

Finally, it is good that some good ballot amendments passed: I'm thinking most fondly on Michigan's Proposal 2, which allows research on embryonic stem cells, and California approved a bullet train, which is pretty cool, and which may in the long run offset the two other environmental proposals the state rejected. Sadly, the success of Proposition 8 in Califoria would seem to trump many progresses made around the country, as it revoked marriage rights in one of only two states where gays and lesbians can truly enjoy marriage equality. Beneath the hubbub over California, similar amendments passed in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. And yet... amid all this... the challenges have begun, and they are built upon firm constitutional ground.

* * * * *

It is deceptive of the graveness of our times to pretend that this election was an unmitigated vitory; in fact there is more to worry about now than ever. It is equally deceptive to underestimate the genuine power, the profound importance of what was declared last Tuesday; as Tom Brokaw said on election night, "just over 150 years ago, Mr. Obama could have been owned, as a black man." The emphasis is mine, but the emphasis is what gives this often unspoken statement its force. I think that Clay Bennett said it even better.

To fall back on a common declaration these days, yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

Be delirious.

Be deliriously happy.

Take a day, a week, a month to feel this happiness, and as you do, use that energy to infect and infest your labor and your conversation.

We just lived through a big thing and it was good ...

and ...

... it has foreshadowed some of the hardest work our nation will ever have to do.

END OF POST.

Event: Illinois Constitutional Convention

In 2006 the Democratic Party was propelled by a slim but decisive mandate into control of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. And yet, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both bodies failed to substantally challenge President Bush and the Republican minority in a substantive way on any major issue, from the unending and futile Iraq war to the recent punitive measures attached to the recent Wall Street bailout.

Many Democrats feel that we should secure a more substantial majority before "holding their feet to the fire." I don't see why we can't do both at the same time. As a result this year I am registering a protest vote against Jan Schakowsky of the Illinois 9th district who voted for both the Wall Street bailout and promised to vote down legislation to fund the Iraq war without a withdrawal timetable before repenting at the last minute.

But Schakowsky is partly a product of her political situation; the Illinois Democratic machine is the home of many stereotypes, and they are more justified here than in many other parts of the country. The moneyed and connected Democrats have a lock on primary nomination and guarantee of success in a general election (except Harold Washington). This system is in nobody's benefit. I write this from a progressive perspective: Illinois is not prosperous when Chicago is not prosperous, and the Democrats have the sane policies this generation. However, Democrats here still lack the spine or drive or temperament to act on their constituencies impulses, and the Schakowsky votes illustrate this.

A constitutional convention is one more opportunity (whether a successful opportunity remains to be seen) to disrupt the all-too entrenched and stubborn local political dynasties. I'm not optimistic about its hopes for success, but a chance is better than none.

Vote for the constitutional amendment. With Democrats perpetually in control of the state senate and house, there is little to fear. With ruling dynasties having benefited from the current constitution for as long as anyone can remember there is very, very little to lose.

Event: ELECTION 2008 : MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-02 : Embryonic Stem-Cell Research.

Proposed Legislative Amendment:

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to address human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research in Michigan. (Proposal provided under an initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on July 7, 2008.)

The proposal would add a new Section 27 to Article 1 of the State Constitution to read as follows:

To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.
(b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

(i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

(ii) the embryos were not unsuitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

(i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or
(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Blue Skies Falling: YES

The Detroit Free Press carried a balanced discussion of the charges the pro- and con- camps brought against each other.

It's good to have a balanced, reasonable discussion, and it's also reasonable to answer emphatically when one argument is objectively stronger than another. I support both of the ballot initiatives this year, but my support for Proposal 2 is both stronger and, to my way of thinking, more important. There are medical, moral, and economic reasons to support this initiative.



The MEDICAL reason to support this initiative.

Opponents of stem cell research like to make observations such as this: "adult and umbilical stem cells have proven to be way more helpful than ESCs, which have given us NOTHING so far."

The point is disingenuous, so we have to address it up-front. First, it evaluates the progress of research strictly on the basis of what has already borne fruit (and even so doing, neglects the fact that adult stem cells have been researched and utilized for much longer). The main advantage that embryonic stem cells have over adult and umbilical cells is that they have not yet developed a specific functionality; they are the most adaptable. This implies that, in the long run, they probably have more applications, and can do things that non-embryonic stem calls can not. Scientifically speaking, this is why there is such a thirst in the medical community to step up research to a level where more meaningful results will manifest. To mix metaphors a little, the Soviets got into space first, but we landed on the moon. It wasn't cheap to get there. Or to make the same argument a bit differently, Jonas Salk wasn't able to cure polio all at once.

The more distressing problem here is the anti- arguments' circular logic: anyone with a scientific or medical background will tell you that it is nearly impossible to make progress on new techniques and technologies without adequate funding, and government-backed funding has a decisive role here because private corporations lack the incentive to conduct research where the potential payoff is intangible or (in the present case) might lie years in the future. So of course embryonic stem cells haven't yielded results yet, because they are burdened by an overrestrictive research environment nationally. In states like Michigan, which outright prohibits research, the effect is absolutely stifling.


The MORAL reason to support this initiative.

Many conservative religious groups oppose embryonic stem cell research on a similar premise to their objection to abortion; life begins at conception, they argue, and it is an audacity against God and human dignity to exploit embryonic stem cells for medical profit, especially when it is fatal to the embryo. Hence the same blog I cited above argues:

This is where I need to bring up a key flaw in the whole debate over embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). You have the camp who opposes ESCR because they believe that life begins at conception, and I fall into this camp. Then you have the camp who argues, “But they’re going to be discarded anyway.” And this is where the ESCR opposition has somewhat failed. Many don’t address this issue and simply say, “Well, we shouldn’t be doing research on them.” That’s not the point. The point needs to be that instead of making EXTRA embryos for in vitro fertilization, we should be making embryos AS NEEDED. Sure, it’s costlier, but it doesn’t create embryos that will be destroyed.

Again, this argument is misinformed, both medically and economically. First, it is impossible to fertilize any egg without destroying thousands, if not millions of sperm. Second, the range of methods for extracting eggs, whether through induced ovulation or other methods are extremely expensive and often compromise the health of the donor. Quite simply, the presence, activity, and effectiveness of any fertility industry presumes that there will be more embryos than can ever be brought to term. It is a nod to sentiment here that the proposal limits the period during which stem cells can be harvested to 14-days of division, a time at which cells are still largely undifferentiated. But if one is making the argument that no more embryos may be conceived than can be brought to term, that must ultimately be a response to fertility treatment in general.

This is, however, the only argument that isn't mired in contradiction.
As long as there are extra embryos, they will be disposed of by some means because they cannot be brought to term. This is a reality that cannot be negated by any state constitution. And yet I rarely hear about concientious opposition to fertility treatment per se.

It is ironic, then, that religious arguments predicated upon the sacredness of life, impede the sustainment of life without a tangible benefit to anyone. The diseases that embryonic stem cells might one day treat are uniquely debilitating and fatal. Christians, including Catholics like myself, need to remember that prudence is a cardinal virtue. We are often forced to live as best we can in an imperfect world. I would argue that it is imprudent to renounce the opportunity to save actual human lives in exchange for an abstract "moral" victory that is hollow because it saves nobody in turn.


The ECONOMIC reason to support this initiative.

Michigan perennial zeitgeist (and where else would such a term even work?) is that its economy is in an unending freefall.

Many opponents of this bill say that it will result in new taxes; in fact the bill does prepare this debate, but it is itself silent on the subject of funding. Now: non-embryonic stem-cell research receives funding in the state; would it be unreasonable to offer financial support to some of the most promising medical research of a generation? It needn't inflate the state budget; again conservatives like to point out the many achievements of adult stem-cell technology... some of that funding could be shifted to embryonic stem-cell research. There are numerous options that will be on the table, but this proposal does not commit any taxpayer money to support the research itself.

In this and many economic arguments, fiscal conservatives tend to overemphasize the importance of taxes overall. As reasonable Hoosiers might tell you, for example, low taxes are a cold comfort when the economy is so bad that you've little income to be taxed, and this is where Michigan really has to think straight about this bill. Members of both parties seek to promote Michigan's economy by bringing in the kind high-tech jobs that are worthy successors of an ailing automotive industry. But if we look at the parts of the country where these industries have thrived -- California and the Pacific Northwest for example -- they are generally found in an environment where openness to technology and technological innovation has thrived. In fact this seems to be at least or more important than the rate of taxation. Sometimes (gasp!) investment opportunity trumps taxation.

The problem is so multivalent that it is difficult to summarize.

For example, some casualties are conspicuous. As the Detroit Free Press states in its endorsement of the proposal, "one clear loss is the departure of some prominent researchers from the University of Michigan -- where stem cell research is the most vigorous -- because of the ban." Thus Michigan loses the opportunity for such a faculty to draw private and pharmaceutical investment to Michigan through the establishment of amicable research.

Not all liabilities are so conspicuous, however. For example, endowments and funding tend to flow to colleges and universities where the most exciting research is happening. Michigan's top research institutions are uniquely positioned in terms of faculty, facilities, and location to be leaders in the country. Increased endowments often mean, among other things, greater resources for tuition assistance. The consequences of the present, unilateral ban are precipitous.



In short, it is always reasonable to consider another point-of-view, but there simply is not rigorous traction to be held against this proposal. The initiative is carefully worded, maintains protections on human dignity and the status and use of embryonic stem cells, while also being robust enough to make a meaningful change. I've outlined some of the scientific, moral, and economic arguments to support the proposal above, but there are many more. The proposal has been endorsed by both major Detroit newspapers and many others, President Bill Clinton, Senator Carl Levin, Governor Jennifer Granholm. Notably both Presidential candidates support the promotion embryonic stem-cell research.

You can contribute to the effort to pass Michigan's Proposal 2 here.

You can help promote the proposal here.

You can find out where you can get a yard sign here.

This proposal marks Michigan's best opportunity this election to set encourage an emerging precedent in the region, and most importantly, to improve the standard of living for its own citizens.

Vote YES on Proposal 2.

Event: ELECTION 2008 : MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-01 : Medical Marijuana

Proposed Legislative Amendment:

A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions. (Proposal provided under a legislative initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on November 20, 2007.)

The following is the language of the legislative amendment as it appeared on the legislative initiative petition.

INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.

Full Text here.

---

Blue Skies Falling: YES

It is true that the legalization of medical marijuana specifically or drugs more generally is not the most pressing issue we face this year. That is, we could stick with the status quo, and things would not get drastically better or worse in the world. It's hard to get away from the "legalize, dude," image of some guy in high school going on and on about how it would be great if we could just get stoned all the time. And on a more personal note, I've always felt that time, money, and energy is in short supply, and all three could be put to better use than providing for legal pot.

These concerns are, however, a major mischaracterization of the real issue.

FIRST, as the language above states, this is a bill to approve marijuana for medical, not recreational use. Similar proposals have been approved and implemented in twelve other states without a noticeable increase in illicit drug use. We need not conjure up images of two-dimensional stoners, nor do we need require that regulatory agency must be written in stone in order to pass meaningful legislation; the proposal is rigorous enough. The drug will be closely regulated by this proposal and will be going to very sick people with their doctors' prescription. Decriminalization is, alas, an entirely different conversation.

SECOND, a consensus has been emerging over the last several decades that marijuana prescription can be appropriate in a medical context. Medical approval has been voiced by such a range of diverse and reputable organizations as the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Nurses Association, as well as the American Bar Association and the National Association of Attorneys General, and individuals ranging from Barack Obama and Carl Sagan to Milton Friedman and Ron Paul. The Michigan Democratic Party supports this proposal, as have the Lansing State Journal, the Detroit News, and other news outlets.

Quite simply, the medical community is more reasonably able to assess the merits and drawbacks of medical marijuana. The alternative is to decide this issue in a political setting fraught with emotion and incentive, and few equivalents to the rigor of medical research and peer review. Individual doctors are best able to make decisions in their patients' interests.

Vote YES on Proposal 1.