Anonymous Is A Woman

It's obvious from this video, taken from the AFL-CIO Blog, that the Virginia AFL-CIO enthusiastically supports former Governor Mark Warner in his bid for the U.S. Senate. This video was taken during the recent July 4th Northern Virginia Central Labor Council picnic, held at the NoVA CLC headquarters.

The man leading the cheering section at the very beginning is NoVA CLC President Dan Duncan. The woman to whom Mark Warner briefly speaks is state AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer and newly elected DNC member Doris Crouse-Mays. He was telling her that he will support the Employee Free Choice Act. (More on the Free Choice Act here.) In doing so, he will be joining Virginia's soon-to-be senior senator, Jim Webb, a co-sponsor of this legislation. Co-sponsors on the House side include Jim Moran, Rick Boucher, and Bobby Scott. In addition, Gerry Connolly announced his support for it at the same picnic. In contrast, Tom Davis voted against it in Congress just as Virginia's other Republican representatives did. Davis used to claim he was a moderate. So, think how Keith Fimian would vote.



Finally, the woman running around with the camera is my friend Joyce Putnam, whose pictures have graced this blog several times. She's a member of OPEIU and works for Washginton Gas.http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

The great thing about having friends who are good with cameras, and who also get a terrific view up front and personal, is that they often are generous and share their photos with you. Thanks, once again, to George Burke, whose pictures have graced my blog more than a few times. These are more photos from Barack Obama's Town Hall on Women's Economic Security, held last Wednesday at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax County.

The first is Barack Obama at the podium.




Next is shot of Obama with Gerry Connolly, congressional candidate for the 11th CD. It was taken backstage.

And a picture of Virginia's First Lady, Ann Holton

http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

I've got some pictures from today's Town Hall on Women's Economic Security, which Barack Obama held at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax County. For the best coverage of the event, you can't beat Teacherken's write up at RK. He literally gives a timeline of Obama's responses to questions and, as always, provides in depth and substantive reporting. In addition, Lowell has some thoughts and a video up as well.

It's my policy not to duplicate what has already been done exeptionally well, so for the actual report, just click and go over to Teacherken's write up.

Meanwhile, thanks to my husband, Dan, for the photos. First one is me with Bryan Scafford, who was seated in the Press Section. He's now blogging at Left of the Hill.

Next is Cindy Fithian, the Obama campaign's Northern Virginia field director, cheering on the crowd.

Gerry Connolly was next, warming up the crowd.

Virginia First Lady, Ann Holton, introduced Barack Obama. She also spoke about what it felt like to be a working woman caught between conflicting responsibilities, raising children and working full time.

Finally, Obama begins his speech. His opening remarks acknowledge what First Lady Holton has said, as he attests to how his own wife, Michelle, is often conflicted, worrying about her work when she is with her children and worrying about her children while she is on the job.

As I've said, for a better blow by blow description of the many questions that Obama responded to, just head on over to RK.
I would like to add my impression of the town hall and Obama's performance. It was an extremely well organized event that stuck close to its scheduled time, a real rarity in politics, especially with a national level candidate. And if McCain and the media think that the more free flowing, spontaneous town hall format favors him and puts Barack Obama at a disadvantage, then they need to think again. Obama handled the questions with grace, dignity and respect for his audience. He thinks fast on his feet and he's as eloquent in this spontaneous format as he is in a prepared speech.
http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

Since I depend on the kindness of friends, it often takes me a while to get pictures up from events. These photos are from the July 4th Northern Virginia Central Labor Council Cookout. This is the second year the CLC has done this and it looks like it's going to be an annual event. I'd like to thank George Burke for these shots. He also took the photo of me with Governor Tim Kaine and Dan, which appears on my sidebar. That was from last year's Independence Day Cookout.

First shot is Dan Duncan, NoVa CLC President, with soon to be Senator Mark Warner.

Next is me with Mark at the beginning of the event, at the side of the building.

Next, Bob Phares, NoVa CLC Trustee, with Gerry Connolly, Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and Congressional candidate in the 11th CD.

Mark addressing the crowd.


Steve Mendenhall, on loan to the CLC for the 2008 Campaign, from the National Air Traffic Controllers; John Dwyer, co-owner of the fine union print shop D & P Printing; Mark; and Jim Leaman, President of the State AFL-CIO.


Ernest Cardwell, Vice President of Sheet Metal Workers, Local 100, with Gerry.

Joe Abbey talking with Jim Leaman. Joe was Chap Petersen's campaign manager and now works with Mark Warner's campaign.

L-R Gerry Connolly, Mark Warner, Margi Vanderhi, Sharon Bulova. Sharon has been my friend for years and I'm glad to finally have a photo of her on my blog.

Me and Gerry Connolly.

Joyce Putnam from OPEIU. She was one of the photographers at the event. I love getting shots of Joyce and others who take the pictures since they so often don't end up getting their pictures taken.
Next year I hope to have my own, small digital camera so I can also get a picture of George Burke, to whom I am grateful for all these shots. Then, he too will get got :)http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

It's no secret to anybody who reads my blog, or my comments on other blogs, that I've wanted Jim Webb as Vice President. I think he'd make a great addition to Barack Obama's presidential ticket, putting Appalachia into play and connecting to working class voters who had become Reagan Democrats, much like him.

Alas, that is not to be. The Senator's office just issued the following press release: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Jessica Smith
202-420-9508

Monday, July 7, 2008

Statement of Senator Jim Webb

Washington, DC-- Senator Jim Webb today issued the following statement:

"Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.

"A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the Senate. I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America's national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the U.S. Senate.

"In this regard, the bipartisan legislative template we were able to put into effect through 18 months of work in order to enact the new landmark GI Bill will serve as a prototype for my future endeavors in government. This process, wherein we brought 58 Senators from both parties to the table as co-sponsors, along with more than 300 members of the House, gives me renewed confidence that the Congress can indeed work effectively across party lines and address the concerns of our citizens.

"At this time I am also renewing my commitment to work hard to make sure that Senator Obama wins both Virginia and the presidency this November. He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and who has the ability to call for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them. I will proudly campaign for him."

Paul Reagan
Chief of Staff
Senator WebbAlthough the dream dies hard, I've got to respect the integrity of the man who will do exactly what he was elected to do: Represent the people of Virginia in the U.S. Senate and continue fighting for economic fairness, national security, GI Rights, and government accountability.http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

Just when you think it’s safe to praise the Washington Post, they come up with an editorial criticizing what may be one of the most creative plans in the nation to deal with the mortgage crisis. It’s further proof of something I’ve long suspected about the Post, which is that their editorial page writers don’t read or respect their own reporters’ work. That can be the only explanation for some of the editorial positions they take which appear to contradict their own front page articles. That appears to be the case here, where Amy Gardner wrote an excellent story on Gerry Connolly’s plan to buy outright some abandoned property to resell to first time homebuyers, especially county employees, and to provide subsidized loans for other foreclosed homes.

And what is the main reason for the Washington Post editorial board’s objection?

They are not sure there’s a crisis yet.
A BOLD PLAN to turn foreclosed homes into affordable housing in Fairfax County is a good idea that is based on fuzzy math. Foreclosures are on the rise in Fairfax, as they are throughout the country, but it's unclear whether the problem is severe enough to require government intervention. Some Fairfax officials say that 3,500 homes in the county were foreclosed on in the first three months of 2008; others say that the number is closer to 2,000. There are no data on how long properties in Fairfax that are foreclosed on remain on the market, and it may be that the private sector is taking care of the problem. It frankly sounds like they are getting ready to drink the same free market Kool Aid that Republican ideologues Michael Frey and Pat Herrity have been known to quaff.

Mortgage foreclosures jumped from 74 in January of 2007 to 1400 in January of 2008 according to a CNN report yesterday (great video at that link). And the Washington Post is questioning whether there’s a problem here?

Further, the Post’s caution, suggesting that county government wait until the crisis of abandoned homes grows even worse, could speed the deterioration of stable middle class neighborhoods, drive property values down even further below market rates, and exacerbate crime and gang problems. Sometimes, being proactive as well as creative can head off major problems. And sometimes waiting on ideology can make small problems gargantuan.

To be sure, some of the Post’s suggestions for implementing this program are correct and are well taken.
The county's housing department will administer these programs, but supervisors will decide which homes to buy. It is unclear how they plan to make this decision. Supervisors said that they would target areas at risk of becoming foreclosure clusters, including neighborhoods in Herndon, Centreville, Vienna and Falls Church. But without precise data on foreclosures, the decision will largely be subjective. This ambiguity could allow politics to enter the equation, particularly for supervisors running for office. It is also unclear whether the purchase of 10 homes would put a dent in the foreclosure rate or arrest falling property values. The housing department will go over many of these details with supervisors in a July 21 meeting. Yes, the county government should proceed in a sensible and pragmatic manner. And that precaution could have been pointed out in a more favorable editorial that supported the idea and made the same point that even good ideas need to be implemented carefully and wisely. But the whole tone of the editorial was negative at its beginning, seeking to question, not simply the implementation but the very necessity of this program to start with, and that’s where the Post editors showed their usual myopia about any government solution. It’s worth noting, however, that the same free market, anti-government intervention Washington Post did not object to an expensive government bailout for the mortgage industry, which created this mess.

They rightly argued that even though many of the companies did not deserve the help, it would be an economic disaster to simply do nothing. They were right then. And they are wrong now because it would also be an economic disaster, for a different group of people, to simply let abandoned homes destroy the property values of hardworking people who, through no fault of their own, happen to have had the misfortune of living next door to other people who defaulted on their mortgages and had to vacate those homes.

On a separate note, it should be pointed out that the Washington Post editorial writers also have a problem with their own fuzzy numbers. They referred to Gerry Connolly as the candidate from the 10th CD, rather than the 11th. Sure it could be just a typo, as Post defenders will rush to comment. But the Washington Post pays lots of money for proofreaders, copy editors and fact checkers. So somebody should have picked that one up. Were they asleep at the wheel or do they just not know Virginia as much as they think they do at the National desk?http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

H/t to Lowell for this one. It looks like he and I might have to start the Church of Springsteen - I agree with him that "Springsteen is God." I used to write about rock and roll for a small, now defunct publication in New York called The Night Owl, which was placed in all the rock clubs in the Village and lower Manhattan. As such, I interviewed one starving but impressive musician who was the first person to call Springsteen God. Apologies for any disrespect to my religious friends and no blasphemy intended.

Go enjoy and Happy Independence Day!



http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

I know, I know, everybody in the Netroots is deeply suspicious of Washington Post reporter, Amy Gardner. And we’ve all had our differences with the pro business Post and with Gerry Connolly. That said, Gardner reports that Connolly proposed a truly innovative plan to ease the mortgage foreclosure problem in Fairfax County, one that adds to the county’s stock of affordable housing and provides homes to county employees – a concept known as workforce housing. Gerry Connolly, Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and candidate for the 11th Congressional District, deserves to be commended as a trailblazer for coming up with this proposal and marshalling it through the Board of Supervisors. And the BOS also deserves kudos for passing the legislation and making it a reality.

Here’s what the WaPo said about it:

Fairfax County approved a landmark housing program yesterday to buy foreclosed properties for middle-income families, becoming one of the first communities in the country to tackle the nation's growing mortgage crisis while also addressing the region's increasing demand for affordable housingAccording to Gardner’s report, the county will buy outright about ten percent of the homes in foreclosure. For the rest, Fairfax will help first time homebuyers purchase houses through subsidized loans, taking advantage of the fact that thousands of homes have fallen below market value, in what the Washington Post has termed “a unique moment.” Here’s the Post quoting Connolly:

"Fairfax, like the rest of the country, is facing a foreclosure crisis that's unprecedented," said county Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D), who proposed the idea. "The county has to use its resources and influence to try to stem the tide." For more details on the dollar amounts and the nuts and bolts of how this plan will work, read the entire article.

Meanwhile, some critics – and every good idea has critics, who often make valid points – charge that instead of putting money into selling these homes to others, the county ought to be doing more to aid the original owners to avoid foreclosure in the first place. As I said, those critics have a point. And Fairfax will, indeed, include financial counseling to homeowners in distress to help them avoid falling into foreclosure if possible.

For some, however, the aid will come too late. They’ve already lost their homes, which stand abandoned, creating a host of problems for the neighborhoods where they are located. I’ll get to those problems in a minute. But I have to add that for many, their financial problems are beyond rescue.

Too many victims took home loans with unrealistic adjustable rates that ballooned. They started with below market “teaser” rates designed to attract homebuyers who had no hope of being able to afford their homes. It’s why the entire industry needs better regulation. Adding to the problem, those who might be able to hang on by refinancing those homes to obtain a more affordable and realistic fixed rate mortgage are locked out of that solution because sinking housing prices mean their homes are no longer worth what they paid for them. Once the housing bubble burst, so did their dreams of owning their own home. You might call it the bursting of the American Dream for many.

Unfortunately, that also leaves an American nightmare for other property owners living in neighborhoods where foreclosed homes are abandoned. Here are some of the problems I told you earlier that I'd discuss.

Anybody who has lived in an urban or inner suburban area can tell you that abandoned buildings of any kind attract illegal squatters. Those could be gang members, drug dealers, addicts in search of crack houses or heroine shooting galleries. And those who take up illicit residence in these places drive up the crime rate as well as driving down the property values.

Ironically, Republicans on the Fairfax Board of Supervisors, such as Pat Herrity and Michael Frey, voted against this housing proposal because they believe the “market” will take care of the problem by attracting private buyers to the foreclosed properties. In fact, Herrity termed it “a problem in search of a solution.”

That’s only true if you believe the government has no role in protecting ordinary citizens and their investments (never mind that government can always find a way to help large investment banks and mortgage companies with expensive, tax funded bailouts). Meanwhile, we’ve seen how well the market has protected those hard working, middle class people by bursting a housing bubble, driving property values down, and leaving their neighborhoods vulnerable to squatters in abandoned buildings, and the accompanying rise in crime rates. Seems like that market could use a little assistance, both in better regulation at the federal level and some innovative programs like this one to help neighborhoods as well as new homebuyers at the local level.

Besides all that, real life is composed of more than just “market-based” values. There is something to be said for using public private partnerships to aid communities in other ways. And that’s another commendable feature of this program.

It would give fire fighters, police, nurses, teachers, and other county employees an opportunity to purchase homes in the communities in which they serve. Providing affordable housing to professionals in the community gives them an even greater stake in that community's well being. It makes those they serve their neighbors, friends, and family members. And in a real national emergency, who wouldn’t want their first responders living in their own communities, better able to truly respond quickly by getting to their duty stations rapidly?

There are manifold benefits to this proposal.

"It's a good idea," said John McClain, a senior fellow at George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis. "It's been talked about nationally, and I hope that it will make a dent."Indeed, Connolly shares that hope.
Connolly said he hopes the program can be a model for the nation -- and also a beginning, capable of expanding if Congress approves legislation addressing the foreclosure crisis. Legislation before Congress would help more than 400,000 distressed borrowers trade mortgages with rapidly rising payments for more affordable government-backed loans if their banks forgive a portion of their debt.

"There could be an infusion of outside resources that would allow us to do more," Connolly said. "The federal bill is still winding its way through Congress. Fairfax would have a program in place to qualify, which is very much on our minds as well."Once again, kudos to Gerry Connolly and the Board of Supervisors for providing a pragmatic and progressive solution at the local level to a growing national problem. This should put a spotlight on Fairfax County for innovative leadership.http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

The Virginia progressive blogosphere is excited that one of our own, Lowell Feld, just released the new book, Netroots Rising, which he and Nate Wilcox co-authored. Waldo posted something about it and here's something from Wilcox on MYDD. Here’s a sample of the comments, from Leesburg Tomorrow, who wrote the following:


The blogger who has done the most to help me get on my feet and pushed me to keep writing and thinking is Lowell Feld of RaisingKaine. He and I do not necessarily agree all the time, but it is thanks to him that Leesburg Tomorrow is here today...I’d have to second that. When I first began blogging, I wrote something about Jim Webb and the next thing I knew I got two comments, one from Lowell and the other from Josh Chernila, both of RK. I didn’t even know who they were. That’s how naïve I was. I had just started blogging and was writing mostly about national level politics, economic populism, and religion. Then, I met Lee Diamond, who was handing out a petition to get Jim Webb on the ballot for the primary. That was how I found out about Webb. Since one of the big issues in Webb’s primary was outsourcing and economic justice at home, I jumped on the bandwagon. I'd been reading and linking to Paul Krugman as much as I could precisely because of his take on the economy.

Then, after reading Lowell's and Josh's comments, the next thing I knew, my blog was listed on their blogroll, they asked me to cross post on RK, I began to get more readers, and somebody suggested that I also get my blog put on Lefty Blogs. Suddenly, I was part of the the Virginia Netroots.

Lowell has done more to encourage and promote me than almost anybody else, except my former neighbor Ben Tribbett. And that was before Lowell ever even met me. So, I’m proud and honored now to put up a link on my blogroll to his new website, Netroots Rising. Not only does it promote the book with excerpts and interviews, but it’s fascinating reading even as a stand alone.

Lowell’s interview with Donnie Fowler, the son of legendary South Carolina DNC Chairman, Donald Fowler (whom I had the pleasure of meeting once), gives a very good, balanced assessment of the new Netroots medium. Donnie, who grew up living and breathing politics, was General Wesley Clark’s first campaign manager and here’s what he had to say:
Fowler: At the risk of being critical of the netroots, there’s a sense in the netroots….lots of them are new to politics, the 2003/2004 campaign was their first real political experience. There’s a sense that there was no grassroots before the internet came along, that’s just a misunderstanding. The grassroots has always existed. What technology has done has allowed us to do the most traditional politics much better and much faster. There’s nothing actually new. The netroots sometimes believes that they invented the grassroots, or some completely highly advanced super charged steroids-full grassroots.
...
Fowler: The underlying feeling that the Democratic Party never did grassroots before the netroots came along, that’s just not true. There were unions, the pro-choice movement, the [civil rights] movement, all of which predated the internet. The internet makes it all easier.Fowler fought for the netroots when the Beltway professionals came in and took over Clark’s campaign. But he’s right that there always was a grassroots composed of loyal foot soldiers who get out the vote election after election, often with little personal reward beyond seeing their candidate win and getting a few of their favorite causes implemented as policy. The ‘net and netroots simply make communication and the exchange of ideas easier. The ideal, as Lowell has often said, is a new electronic town square, where the entire globe can be our village.

My favorite interview, though, is one Lowell conducted with Jon Henke, who was Lowell’s counterpart in the George Allen campaign.

Because I actively participated in blogging for Jim Webb and against George Allen at the time, I had a front row seat to some of what they are discussing. That campaign was as knock down and drag out as it gets. I remember trying to describe it to a friend who wasn’t familiar with the blogosphere. I said, “It’s a full contact sport, not for the faint of heart or squeamish.”

It’s fascinating all these years later to see these two worthy adversaries sit down to a cordial interview and to read Henke’s take on what happened.
Henke: I believe the Democrats “got” the Netroots in 2006, while Republicans did not get it at all. In 2007, Republicans are just now at the same place Democrats were in late 2002/early 2003: they know this whole “new media” thing is important and they know they should try to figure it out, but it’s still a bit of a mystery to most of them. It will take some time for the establishment to grow comfortable with the new communications medium.

Henke: I think pro-Democratic blogs outnumber pro-Republican blogs almost everywhere, regardless of the hue of the State. Democrats have a much more developed new media operation, and the liberal/progressive movement throws more resources at their new media effort. However, in Virginia, as in much of the country, it’s simply a matter of Democrats being out of power, frustrated and in search of new venues for their voice. Democrats gravitated to blogs for the same reason that Republicans gravitated to talk radio and Free Republic in the 90s. It gave them a place to shout – a place to get involved.

Feld: Do you believe that senior Allen strategists like Dick Wadhams were surprised at the intensity of the Virginia blogosphere? Did anyone ever say to Wadhams, “Dick, I don’t think we’re in South Dakota anymore!”

Henke: I think virtually all Republicans were surprised at the effectiveness of the Democrats internet media machine. I suspect that a few years of apparent impotence had lulled them into the belief that the LeftRoots movement was just the “fringe crazies”. That misses the real power and influence of the liberal blogs, in my opinion, which is much more in narrative development and messaging to the influentials than about fundraising and GOTV.I could, of course, tell you what Henke said about the Macacca Moment. But nah! For that, you’ll just have to go to Netroots Rising and read it for yourself. And read what Jim Webb had to tell Lowell.

If you buy the book, you’ll find out how a group of upstarts launched a movement, helped turn the Senate blue, and made history.http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

It surprises me but every once in a while the Washington Post gets it right, even on the economy. That's especially true when they let an op-ed writer pen something for the Sunday Outlook section. Today, they carried an essay, by Gilbert B. Kaplan, a partner in King, Stamp and Spalding, that spells out five of the most prevalent myths about American manufacturing and its decline. According to Kaplan, it's not that Americans can't compete on a level playing field. As he claims, the playing field starts out leaning steeply uphill. The American worker - and the U.S. manufacturer - hardly have a chance, and the miracle is that anybody succeeds at all at starting and maintaining a manufacturing company. Here's some of what Kaplan says in dispelling the myth of American manufacturing.
1. It's all about cheap wages. American workers are just paid too much.

For most manufacturing sectors, that's just wrong. Labor costs are already less than 10 percent of the cost of making many products, including steel and semiconductors. Many of the real cost disadvantages the United States confronts are self-imposed. Our government doesn't rebate taxes to corporations when they export manufactured products, the way other countries do: A Brazilian steel company, for example, can get a 17 percent tax credit for every ton of steel it sends abroad. In addition, many foreign countries keep their currencies valued extremely low against the dollar. Most economists believe that China undervalues its currency by as much as 40 percent. That makes Chinese goods very cheap here and U.S. exports very expensive in China. This is a key driver of the $260 billion trade deficit with Beijing. We should deal with these issues in our international trade negotiations, but we haven't.

2. U.S. manufacturers can save themselves by investing in innovation.

Okay, but how much are you going to invest? U.S. private-sector companies can't put as much money into technology and research and development as foreign governments do to build up their sectors. As the chief executive of a technology firm with whom I've worked for many years says, "We're the best company in the world, but we can't compete with foreign governments." Consider Airbus. The European Union has put more than $15 billion into building this aircraft company from the ground up. Whatever you may think about the recent U.S. Air Force decision to buy tankers from Airbus rather than Boeing, one thing is clear: Through its subsidies, the E.U. has managed to build a highly competitive aircraft industry. South Korea has put more than $12 billion into its semiconductor industry to similar effect, severely harming the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing base.

3. Trade laws and trade agreements level the playing field for U.S. manufacturers.

If only this were so. This should be the main goal of our trade negotiations. The manufacturing sector is hurting more than any other, but we're using our political capital -- in the Doha round, for example, the latest World Trade Organization negotiating round -- to help the service and agricultural sectors. Little is being done for basic manufacturing. There are international trade laws under which U.S. companies can file cases to offset unfair practices in China, Japan and other countries, but they're difficult to use, expensive and haven't solved the problem. In 2006, despite a manufacturing trade deficit of more than $600 billion, U.S. manufacturers filed only eight new trade cases. If these statutes were really working, we would see hundreds of new cases each year, instead of watching U.S. companies decide that it's better to give up and just move manufacturing plants abroad -- something I've recently heard executives in both the textile and electronics sectors say they're thinking about doing.There are only two more myths to list and I'm already in serious danger of violating the fair use laws here. I'd love to just reprint the whole article because it's so good at shattering most of the shibboleths the right wing and the free trade advocates hold so dear about the global economy and competition.

One of the main points that screamed out at me was that U.S. manufacturers are not just competing against their foreign counterparts, they are also competing against foreign government subsidies to key industries. When the European Union, for example, subsidizes investment in Airbus, that tilts the so-called playing field into one lopsided sports ground.

Likewise, other countries provide tax credits and other financial breaks to private companies to encourage them to stay in country and export their products elsewhere. We do the opposite. We provide tax shelters for windfall profits made overseas and give breaks that encourage our big businesses to relocate to other countries and import goods back to us. That's the reverse of what Europe does. While they attempt to keep good jobs in their countries and export their goods, our screwy policy is to encourage outsourcing of jobs and valuable resources and importing of foreign products.

American companies are also hamstrung by rising health care costs. While most first world industrial nations provide universal health care to their citizens, we rely on privately funded insurance, picked up by our employers. Ironically, Europeans and Canadians often get better care at cheaper rates than we do. I know the arguments about long lines for government paid care and the inefficiency of socialized medicine. But that's only true in England. Most of Europe provides subsidies directly to individuals and families and lets them choose their doctors. And the most vocal critics of European health care obviously haven't seen the restrictions that American HMOs impose on patients, limiting their choice of doctors and causing long waits for health care services.

Another myth to bust: The high tech jobs that were supposed to replace manufacturing jobs in the rust belt are also going overseas. Anybody with a computer, any where in the world, can do the jobs we were training displaced workers to do. Meanwhile, our government does not even negotiate good trade deals to relieve some of the worst of our disadvantages. Instead, the trade deals we have in place have only encouraged more off shoring.

In addition, many of the emerging nations with whom we are competing, such as China, keep their currencies artificially low against the dollar so our goods are too expensive on the world market, while theirs are cheaper even to import back here. It's not the high salaries of American workers, but manipulation of the world currency market that boosts our product prices and makes them uncompetitive. And that's something our government should be doing something about. It's not free market competition but the interference of other governments on behalf of their businesses that is causing our economic problems in the global economy.

Besides creating a shrinking job market, our policies are creating other problems for Americans. It's just not healthy for a nation to import everything, produce nothing, and simply depend on a service economy for all its jobs and income. It's bad for the overall economic prosperity and it's bad for national security. All you need is a belligerent nation to cut off their supplies to us (like oil maybe?) or to blockade the ports of an exporter nation and they will have choked our life line. Isn't it time to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector and regain our self reliance?http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

A reader left a comment that got me pondering the limits of freedom and religious tolerance. Here is what Coleen McMains wrote as a response to my original post, which was about the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors decision to renew the lease of the controversial Islamic Saudi academy: I find your blog disturbing. Overall, for the fact that you are all right with supporting the rights for innocent children to be taught, in their textbooks, in OUR schools, that WE are infidels, Christian's and Jews are "apes and pigs" (it says this on the Koran) and that homosexuals should be thrown from cliffs (also in the Koran). Where were our rights...as Americans...when THESE people hijacked four airliners and killed thousands of our citizens on September 11, 2001? Do you remember that day? Were you proclaiming their first amendment rights and proclaiming their need for religious freedom on that day? It is people, like yourself, that are so bound up in these people having their "rights" and "religious freedoms" that will be the downfall of our country.First of all, let me assure Ms. McMains that I indeed remember that day well. I was fleeing from an office right near the White House, considered at the time to be a likely target in an attack on the U.S. I spent hours in traffic evacuating the Washington, DC while frantic family and friends wondered about my whereabouts. I had – and still have – friends who work at the Pentagon. I was frantic about them. I also had relatives in lower Manhattan, not far from the Twin Towers. And New York City is my hometown. To say the least, I had many connections to both areas affected by that attack. It’s always dangerous to make easy assumptions when in high dudgeon, attacking somebody. I’ve done it myself and been embarrassed. But that’s another story.

What troubles me most, however, are how many other unquestioned assumptions Ms. McMains makes in this comment.

First is the notion that all Muslims are extremists. The other is that all Muslims take every word of the Koran literally and interpret it narrowly and so are actively committed to throwing every homosexual off a cliff and killing every infidel who doesn’t share their religious beliefs.

Although I disagree with Ms. McMains - I’ll get into the reasons in a few minutes - I think she is sincere in her belief that there are real dangers lurking out there because of the threat of radical Islam. I even agree that the way Islam is practiced by groups like the Taliban, the Wahabbists, Salafis and al Qaeda is dangerous.

It’s also true, I think, that America needs to regain control of its too porous borders to keep terrorists from those groups from entering our country. It’s important to acknowledge that there are two separate issues in our immigration problems. One is dealing humanely with the many illegal immigrants who live and work in our country, contributing to our economy and conducting themselves as law abiding residents. Their only crime was entering America illegally. But once here, they have acted in a productive and respectful manner. Those people deserve a pathway to citizenship, which involves paying fines, going to the back of the line, and fulfilling certain obligations. But they do not deserve to be booted out and have their lives and their families’ lives disrupted.

But the other issue is that we have to stop the flow of new illegal immigrants into the nation, especially those who might present a security threat. That is the more serious problem and deserves immediate attention. I happen to agree with Ms. McMains and other critics that America is under no obligation to open its borders to, and welcome in, followers of Osama bin Laden or Mullah Mohammed Omar.

On the other hand, Ms. McMains unexamined idea that religious tolerance is dangerous is as disturbing to me as my support for First Amendment rights is disturbing to her.

As I quoted in my original blog diary, John Whitehead, from the Rutherford Institute, while speaking in defense of the Saudi Islamic Academy, said that religions have a history of teaching intolerant things, which is why they need the extra protection of the Constitution.

That’s objectively true.

A somewhat humorous piece has made its way around the Internet, and even wound up as a speech by President Jed Bartlett on The West Wing. In it a religious person expresses his dilemma at having to follow certain sections of the Old Testament. Here are a few examples: • I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

• Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

• I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

• A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?In addition, the Bible seems to encourage, even command, genocide. Not only were the ancient Israelites, returning from bondage in Egypt, given the land of Canaan, but they were exhorted by God to kill all the original Canaanite inhabitants. Slackers that they were, when they failed to be as thorough as God commanded them to be, they were roundly condemned for it. In fact, when King Saul falls out of favor with God, the prophet Samuel tells him it is because he disobeyed God’s direct command to kill all the Canaanites – every man, woman and child – who were polluting the land.

Here are just a few examples of relevant passages: NKJ Deu 7:1 “When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 “and when he LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.

NKJ Deu 20:16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 “but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,

NKJ 1Sa 15:1 Samuel also said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 ‘Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”Now modern Christians, even fairly conservative ones, will quickly point out that they actually don’t do this anymore. But those Biblical passages about how to treat “infidels” were used to justify the terrible treatment that Native Americans received from white settlers, including theft of their land, forced conversions, confinement on reservations, and massacres.

And even today, you can find fundamentalists Christian groups, such as this one, which unapologetically support the command to genocide simply because it is in the Bible. The Justification of God’s Call to Holy War
In light of the context and nature of holy war, God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites may be justified under the following biblical principles: First of all, the Canaanites had known about Yahweh’s redemptive acts on behalf of Israel for many years (Josh 2:10, 11); yet, with the exception of Rahab (Josh 2:12, 13), they did not repent. Therefore, the Canaanites stood under the just condemnation of God (Rom 1:18-2:16) (Greene, 1929:220). Secondly, the Bible teaches (as does the light of nature) the principle of corporate solidarity, whereby the actions of an individual may affect the larger community for good or evil (Josh 7; Rom 5:12-21). Thirdly, God’s love for his people and desire to maintain their purity required the preventative excision of that which would inevitably corrupt their devotion to the true religion (Deut 20:16-18). As Wright points out, “divine love is a two-edged sword” (1969:130-31). Like a surgeon, God removed the cancerous growth of Canaanite depravity in order to promote the longevity of his people. Finally, we must remember that Israel’s holy war against Canaan is a redemptive-historical type of spiritual and eschatological warfare (cf. Eph 6:10-18; Heb 4:1-11; Rev 19:11-21) (Holloway, 1998:57). Eschatological judgment intruded into human history in a unique way, which only finds its equal at Calvary (Rom. 3:25; Gal. 3:13) and at the Second Coming (Rev. 6:16; 14:10).Tell me, what is the real difference between this passage and the calls for jihad from radical Muslims?

The only thing that makes the Muslim claim reprehensible and the Judeo Christian claim permissible is which religious tradition you believe is the true faith. If you do a mind exercise and assume that Allah is the true God and that the Koran is the truthful revelation, then the command to exterminate infidels becomes as acceptable as Jehovah’s command to liquidate all the Canaanites.

Of course, when I go into Catholic or Methodist churches, I don’t hear exhortations to genocide. In fact, all of us would be more likely to hear pleas for peace. The same would be true if we went into any modern synagogue or temple. Members of all those faiths have somehow moved beyond the belief that they are commanded to kill infidels. The same is true for most Muslims. The groups that hold a literalist view are a minority of Muslims. Just as they are a minority of Christians or Jews.

But if you start closing down schools for teaching religion, whose school follows the Saudi academy?

According to this article, Christian religious schools and homeschoolers often use textbooks that show little tolerance for non Christians or even for Christians who aren’t fundamentalists. Those textbooks are intolerant of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even Catholics. To say that Christian fundamentalist textbooks portray Roman Catholicism and non-Western religions in a negative way is to understate the case by several orders of magnitude. All the texts are imbued with an arrogance and hostility toward non-Western religions that is truly breathtaking

This animus toward other religions is intimately tied to the theological roots of fundamentalist Christian perspectives. As researchers Gaddy, Hall, and Maranzo have noted, because Christian fundamentalists believe that truth can only be found in “God's infallible, literal Word revealed in the Bible, religious tolerance toward others with different values and different world views must be rejected.” 1

In looking at the treatment of religion, I again studied three major textbook publishers for fundamentalist Christian schools and home-schoolers: A Beka Press, Bob Jones University Press, and School of Tomorrow/Accelerated Christian Education. I drew on a wider range of the textbooks and materials than in my discussion of politics and included substantially more material from world history and geography textbooks and, in some instances, from English literature texts.So, do we close them down and deny parents the right to home school too?

It goes back to my original contention that if you start violating the First Amendment rights of one group, then none of us are safe.

It’s fair to debate the limits of tolerance. How much intolerance can a free society allow and still remain open and democratic? How does one discourage religious bigotry without violating the First Amendment rights that protect us all?

Indeed, the anti-religious prescriptions of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to shut down all religious teaching are as dangerous as any other extremist solution. So while I am sympathetic to Ms. McMains’ alarm, I don’t think there are easy answers. I believe we will always struggle with the tension between protecting religious liberty for all versus shutting down the extremism that threatens those liberties we hold so dear in a democratic society.

And don’t think this is a new problem. The dilemma was put starkly by Benjamin Franklin: “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com

At least until next Thursday. Easiest way to drive the number of hits down on an active blog: Admit you're going on vacation for a few days.

Seriously, it's just polite to let regular readers know that I won't be around until next Thursday or Friday (at least, on the Internet). By the time you read this, I'll be winging my way to steamy South Florida for a visit with my dad and to see some old friends - all of whom were at my wedding 25 years ago. Yes, it's also to celebrate my Silver Anniversary back at the scene of the crime. God, is it really 25 years?

Oh, and all those friends were in the Young Democrats with Dan and me. Dan was president of the Broward Club and both of us, at different times, were voted Broward YD of the Year. So, catching up on local South Florida politics, where some things never change, will be fun.

Stay cool and see you back on the Net soon.http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com