With Obama and Clinton striding the world stage, state legislature facing life-and-death issues and clowns like Rush Limbaugh and every living soul at Fox News seeking to turn American democracy in their very freak show, we too often forget that politics is not limited to the large scale. All across the country, every day and every evening, people are meeting in small groups: committees, work groups, ad hoc sessions, dinner meetings, accidental gathers. In every possible dimension, and for every possible reason, Americans get together to do politics on a scale that does not draw the attention of any media but does allow for individuals to have a say and feel as if they are part of the process.

Given the way the Dean and Obama campaigns grew into life from small, unnoticed meetings, no one should ever doubt that the small meeting they attend does not matter.

An example. Tonight I attended the Platform and Resolution Committee meeting of the Multnomah County Democrats, not as a committee member but as a presenter: I have a resolution I want to bring to the Central Committee, and this is the most common means of doing so. Six committee members did meet, with Gordon Hillesland chairing the committee. Three resolutions were heard (by the time I left), one on concealed gun permits, one on Instant Runoff Voting, and mine, to support HB2556, the "Keep the Guard Home" campaign. The content of the resolutions did not matter so much as the fact that eleven people bother to show up for over two hours on a Thursday evening to discuss items they believed were important and to be part of the political process, however micro the scale.

The first resolution did not receive a recommendation, more because of a lack of clarity in the language than any disagreement on substance. The IRV discussion (more correctly, the resolution in support of SB 29, which will allow local governments in Oregon to experiment with IRV) was discussed in detail and then given a thumbs-up, 6-0 (all resolutions move on to the next Central Committee meeting regardless, but a vote to recommend does mean something). My resolution received a 4-1 vote, after I rewrote a number of items to clarify the language (a common problem, it turns out, for resolutions coming from novices) and to remove some unnecessary and inflammatory words. The one vote to not approve came because the committee member thought this should be dealt with at the national and not the state level; everyone at the meeting agreed with the substance of my resolution and HB 2556.

There are a lot of musicians out there that don't get the recognition they deserve; not from the media but from music-lovers. I can't believe how much great music I have not heard, artists I would love and yet somehow it just doesn't happen.

Until it does. A friend will suggest a band, or I overhear something, or I click on a YouTube video. I went for too many years not knowing Robert Earl Keen; I knew his biggest hit, "The Road Goes On Forever (and the Party Never Ends)" which has a horrendous story but, goddamn, it's such a great song. But that's just the beginning. Keen writes other songs about the low life, but some incredibly beautiful songs, too. Kind of like my #1 guy, Jimmy Buffett: the full range of human experience.

Sadly, not much good video of Keen on the YTs. Lots of crap homemade vids, but only a few decent ones. Amarillo Highway kicks off his album "A Bigger Piece of the Sky", a great intro to a great, and too-unknown, singer-songwriter.

The argument made against limiting the bonuses paid to big CEOs is that big, big money is needed to get big, big talent. The easy rejoinder, of course, is that most of these big talents have proven to be miserable failures. The bonuses have not brought talent and success; they've simply been a way for a few individuals to rob many others blind.

I hope the limits hold and that many of the usual suspects refuse to participate in the corporations receiving stimulus funding. This will force corporations to do what they clearly should have done long ago: Look for leaders who care about their corporation's success and not about their own portfolio. How? Find men and women who are looking to make their name, not their fortune. Most of the great successes in American business history have come from new players in the game, people who have brought new products, new ideas and new companies into the marketplace and kicked capitalist ass. Many of the most successful recent companies were started by young people who were not trying to get filthy rich; they were trying to live out a dream.

So instead of whining that CEO X, who failed to rescue five other corporations but will surely have success here, simply cannot be bought under the new rules, go find a young man or woman with actual talent and a record that demonstrates potential. Don't hope that a Larry Brown will fix something when you have the chance to hire the next Phil Jackson. In fact, looking at both technology and sports, it's amazing how often someone new on the scene brings explosive success. With one bonus, to boot: You get to pay them less.

Experience? It appears to be an excuse to line one's pocket. How about going for actual ability instead?

Stephanie Miller, host of her independently produced and very funny morning talk show, and daughter of Barry Goldwater's 1964 running mate, spoke to C-SPAN in early January; I caught a clip of it at Crooks & Liars yesterday

Well I think it speaks to a lot of Barack Obama has been speaking to and that is an inclusiveness. ... I think it's interesting Barack Obama personally got elected on the power of we. He never said I. You know he quoted that we're the ones we've been waiting for, um, yes we can, and I think that's what people have been so thirsty for. To me that's what it means to be a liberal.

There are about 2 million defintions of liberalism available to us, and most have to do with the Enlightenment (a good place to start, actually), government, markets, individual liberty, etc. Very rarely is liberalism discussed as "inclusivity." But that is what a liberal government does: include all people in the benefits, and responsibilities, of political and social life.

The interviewer asked Stephanie if she's a liberal or progressive, noting that the two terms seem to be either interchangeable or that many use the latter out of fear of being called the former. She said she's glad to be a liberal, but her understanding of what liberalism accomplishes is, in fact very progressive. As I have written repeatedly, liberalism is about the kinds of political programs and policies we promote; progressivism is how we do the politics. A liberal public service will be encouraged and supported by government, will be open to all who need or would benefit from it and would derive at least partial funding from those able to pay. To make that policy possible requires a progressive movement of support; in other words, ordinary citizens, active in the grassroots, would be a major source of the impetus for that policy. Liberal policy with progressive politics.

(And I owe the distinction to a Daily Kos blogger commenting on Krugman.)

The entire interview is linked at C&L; Miller's show can be heard online, 6am - 9am, Mon-Fri, on KPTK. I miss being to listen to it.

Rep Earl Blumenaneur (D-Pedal Power) had this to say about bikes in HuffPost recently (I wasn't paying close enough attention when it first came out on the 6th):

Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.

Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects — therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent.

We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal.

This is the kind of uber-partisan attack from the right that underscores their overarching goal in the stimulus debate: stopping the Dems, and Pres Obama, from winning. Just as they did when they were in power (and laying the groundwork for engorging the federal government while simultaneously destroying the economy), they show no intention of trying to make things better for the majority of Americans but simply to score ideological points and destroy any plans of the Dems. Nevermind the American people back the Democrats and the President; nevermind that the Rs failed when in leadership; nevermind the world is falling to pieces.

Better to destroy their enemies even if they take the nation down with them.

Earl's whole piece is worth a read. Understand why bike paths make such good economic sense.

Not the most critical of current events, but music is the one thing that has been there throughout my life. No matter how badly things were going — my parents getting divorced, me getting divorced, loneliness, utter and total despair — I had music to listen to. Music has healed me time and again. etc etc. I cannot overstate how much the music I love means to me.

Which is why the Grammy Awards piss me off, year and year. Touted as the music industry's greatest achievement, they are voted on by people who seem to have one criterion for their choice: The winner is the most famous person in the category. BB King put out a blues album? Ding ding. Winner. Jose Feliciano? Ding ding. Robert Plant? Well, hell, not only has Led Zep been around forever, this is a Bold and Daring Album. He recorded it with Alison Krauss. You know: the cute little girl with the pretty voice who has won about a zillion bluegrass Grammys. Wow. Daring and famous.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

What pisses me off though, isn't the multitude of awards they won. I have heard almost nothing of the albums and songs they beat in most of the categories. It's not even that they won Album of the Year; it's that they also won Contemporary Folk Album of the Year. Why is this so infuriating? Because one of the artists they beat, Emmylou Harris (All I Intended to Be, a good album but not one of her best) has never been nominated for Album of the Year. Not even the amazing and groundbreaking "Mirror Ball," which she made with legendary rock producer Daniel Lanois. Hardly a folk album at album, yet one of the most brilliant pieces of work of her career and head-and-shoulders above 99% of the crap produced year after year. Yes, it won best Contemporary Folk Album the year it came out (1995?), but was not even nominated for Best Record.

Fame continues to be its own reward. Mariah Carey and Britney win multiple Grammys, not because they are the best in those years but because they are Names. Gag. Meanwhile, hundreds of albums made by superior artist are not recognized by more than a handful of fans; great music is left out of the running because the awards, led by the Grammys, refuse to do their jobs and nominate quality. But that's not what the music industry, or any industry is about: quality. It's about making shitloads of money. Robert Plant sells records and makes money; Emmylou sells, but not nearly at the same rate.

Guess who wins?

I was living in England when ska hit the airwaves, and of all the ska bands, none were more exciting, fun and danceable than Madness. And nothing was more fun than dancing to Madness. Thirty years later, and it's as infectious and fresh as ever. Enjoy.

The NY Times:

Senate Democrats reached an agreement with Republican moderates on Friday to pare a huge economic recovery measure, clearing the way for approval of a package that President Obama said was urgently needed in light of mounting job losses.

...

The fine print was not immediately available, and the numbers were shifting. But in essence, the Democratic leadership and two centrist Republicans announced they had struck a deal on about $110 billion in cuts to the roughly $900 billion legislation — a deal expected to provide at least the 60 votes needed to send the bill out of the Senate and into negotiations with the House, which has passed its own version.

And whatever disappointment I initially felt at the cuts (not even knowing what they were, just knowing the amount was too small) was mediated somewhat by this:

Republicans were clearly irritated at the outcome and faulted those involved in working out the bargain. “When you say this was the best we could do, I disagree with you,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on the floor. “This not remotely close to what we could have done if we had sat down in a true bipartisan fashion and found a better way.”

Lindsey Graham is pissed? That's definitely good news.

"Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential," Obama said earlier this week, aware, as I'm sure he has since before he took ofice, that the stimuluar package would fall short of his expectations — and far short of those hungry to see the nation turn immediately from the policies of the past eight years (and more). What the Senate is going to pass is indeed far short of perfect; many will argue it does not even achieve the essential threshold. This is true only if the goal is to fix the economy in one single act. That was never going to happen.

Had the Congress been able to pass even the most ambitious recovery package, it would not have been enough. Even Paul Krugman's call for a $2 trillion effort would have been insufficient, for the very simple and very real reason that the world is going to change, circumstances will shift, and what we do today will not be the right thing for tomorrow. In this light, a less ambitious program that provides a serious and significant jumpstart to the economy may turn out to be the best one to put forward.