Don’t believe the hype about the Supreme Court being a non-political institution. The Supreme Court is as political as they come, with the justices applying justice according to their vision for America. So, what does nominee Samuel Alito want to do with America? Take a gander at the following rulings, which are just a sample of the many decisions in Judge Alito’s history:

In Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) v. Magnesium Elektron (MEI) Judge Alito ruled to restrict the right of citizens to seek recourse as allowed by the Clean Water Act - in spite of the fact that the Clean Water Act explicitly allows citizen groups to do so.

In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development Judge Alito ruled against the personal leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act, saying that Congress did not have the right to use the Family and Medical Leave Act to give workers the right to a 12-week unpaid leave of absence after the birth of a child or to assist an ill family member.

In Baker v. Monroe Township Judge Alito ruled that it was all right for a woman and her three children to be handcuffed and threatened with guns as they were approaching a house, even though the search warrant for that house contained no information that the woman or her family were targets of the search.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991 Judge Alito was the only judge ruling on the case who had the opinion that women can be required to notify their husbands before they get an abortion.

In spite of multiple rulings that government has the right to regulate abortion, in U.S. v. Rybar Judge Alito ruled that the Congress does not have the right to prohibit the possession or transfer of machine guns.

What do you think that these rulings point to? Does Judge Alito deserve the kind of free pass that John Roberts received, or does he merit a judicial filibuster from the Senate Democrats? If you’re a Republican, do you think that Judge Alito is worth the Senate Republicans going nuclear?

The word is in: Right now, George W. Bush is nominating right wing Judge Sam Alito for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Whatever your concerns about the survival of liberty under Republican rule, you have cause to be concerned about Judge Alito. Consider the legal nickname that Judge Alito has earned: SCALITO (For those of you not versed in the Supreme Court, that’s a reference to Sam Alito’s ideological affinity for the most extremist member of the Supreme Court: Justice Antonin Scalia.

Well, Bush can trot out Alito’s nice wife and kids for his introductory speech, but it won’t distract us from the radical right wing agenda of Judge Alito. We’ll do everything in our power to keep Alito off the Supreme Court, and keep the relatively moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court as long as possible.

For that reason, we’ve created two small anti-Alito stores of political material such as bumper stickers, t-shirts and buttons: No to Alito and the more sarcastic Alito Love, featuring messages such as “I love Alito - Freedom is Overrated” and “I Hate the Constitution - I love Samuel Alito”.

We’re also offering the following anti-Alito bumper stickers on our Irregular Goods store of progressive political goods:

I saw the following headline in today’s National Post.

Pentagon puts Iraqi casualties at 26,000

The National Post is a Canadian newspaper, but its headline shows quite aptly how newspapers throughout the English-speaking world have got the story wrong. The Pentagon has not listed Iraqi casualties from the American invasion and occupation at 26,000.

The Pentagon has actually only listed 26,000 Iraqi deaths and woundings from insurgent attacks, since the beginning of 2004 - 9 months after the war began, and not including October of this year. Also, the list is only partial, based on the deaths and woundings of people the Pentagon classifies as civilians, and only including the deaths and woundings that the Pentagon has heard about and confirmed.

Iraqi combatants are not listed.
Iraqi civilians who died or were wounded in the first 9 months of the war and during October 2005 are not listed.
Iraqi civilians killed or wounded by the United States and its allies are not listed.

The report does give a very telling figure: It says that most attacks are against US and allied forces, but that most of the casualties are Iraqi. Here it is, word for word, from the report: “Approximately 80 percent of all attacks are directed against coalition forces, but 80 percent of all casualties are suffered by Iraqis.”

Do the math. If only 20 percent of casualties are suffered by Iraqis, then the casualty rate of Iraqi civilians has to be much, much higher than 26,000. As of a couple days ago, the American death toll was 2004 (the “coalition” death toll is even higher). Something like 15,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq. That makes the total casualty figure for Americans alone at 17,000. If the ratio of US and coalition casualties to Iraqi casualties is 20 to 80, then that means that the number of Iraqi casualties must be at least 68,000.

Many experts agree that the Pentagon estimates are obviously understatements of the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. “It strikes me as low,” says Mark Gerlasco, a military analyst at Human Rights Watch. Gerlasco ought to know. He worked for the Pentagon to identify targets and drop bombs in Iraq in the first weeks of the invasion of Iraq. I listened to Gerlasco explain his role in the American invasion of Iraq two and a half years ago on this weekend’s edition of This American Life. One telling statistic offered during that broadcast was that about 50,000 bombs have been dropped by Americans on Iraq since the beginning of the war.

50,000 bombs dropped, and we’re supposed to believe that only 26,000 Iraqis have been killed or wounded? Come on - the number of dead as result of those bombs has to be added to the number of Iraqis killed by our tanks and our bullets as well - as well as the attacks by insurgents.

U.S. General Tommy Franks famously informed reporters when they asked how many Iraqi civilians had been killed so far, “We don’t do body counts.” We now know that General Franks was telling a bald-faced lie. The Pentagon certainly does do body counts of civilians. It just keeps them secret.

Now, the American people, if they have any decency, must demand the complete picture. We deserve to hear the complete number of civilian casualties in Iraq. We’re paying for the war, and we ought to know its consequences.

Reuters reports that George W. Bush is going to name a new nominee to the Supreme Court on Monday. The top contenders? According to scuttlebutt:

1. Samuel Alito: Referred to as “Scalito” for his resemblence to ultra-extremist justice Antonin Scalia. Openly, rabidly anti-choice. Thinks women need to notify their husbands before making health care choices about their own bodies. Believes that civil liberties are overrated.

2. Michael Luttig: Antonin Scalia’s protege. Doesn’t believe in the individual’s right to a trial before his or her peers or to question his or her accuser. Values presidential power over civil liberties. Struck down Violence Against Women Act. Judicial bully, siding with the powerful against the powerless — a complete flip of what the Constitution stands for. Real gem.

Look for the final announcement tomorrow, and then… what?

Well, look at what happened with the last two nominations and you know what to expect of the establishment Democratic politicians. They will sit on their hands and while away the hours, hemming and hawing until what they actually think proves irrelevant. It’s up to you to do something about these nominations. Write a letter to the editor thirty minutes after you find out who the nominee will be (five minutes after you review his — yes, it will probably be a boy judge — record) and ask the necessary critical questions that Senator Bumblejam won’t bother with. Grab yourself a bumper sticker, button or shirt in opposition to the nominee as soon as you can so that, when you get the beastie a week later, you can make a public statement of your disdain for what is sure to be a disastrous Bush choice.

Bottom line: You can’t trust anyone else to do the work for you on this issue. You must speak out for the change you want to see in the world. You must speak out against the disasters that you see looming.

Peregrin Wood wrote this morning about the sham of the pseudoscientific veneer intelligent design proponents have used to mask crude Creationism. The article was brought back to the top of my mind this evening as I looked to the East.

If you are in an area without excessive artificial lighting and with clear skies, to the East you will see, tonight and the next few nights, the planet Mars shining much more brightly than usual. The reason? It’s nothing astrological. Nothing about any supposed firmament. Nothing supernatural.

Scientists know that the orbits of Mars and Earth are bringing them closer together than usual this week. Scientists have known that this would happen for quite some time, because they’ve made centuries of careful observations, and built a reliable scientific theory of gravity as a result. We don’t criticize that theory of gravity by saying that it’s just a theory. It’s a really useful scientific theory, as it turns out. Many theories, like the theory of gravity, are absolutely wonderful - even though they’re theories and not absolute, theocratic-style, declarations of immovable truth.

The theory of natural selection as a cause of biological evolution is another marvelous theory.

What we know about Mars got me thinking about just how much we know about the supposed intelligent designer that neo-Creationist Christian fundamentalists are always gabbing on about. How much do we know about this intelligent designer of the universe? Zero. Absolutely zero.

Oh, the Christian fundamentalist intelligent design crowd says it knows a lot about the supposed intelligent designer. But, the fact is, they don’t really know. They just believe everything that they say they know about this intelligent designer character.

There has never been a truly rigorous study of the intelligent designer, because, well, there’s not even any evidence that any intelligent designer exists. We know more than a trillion times more about the planet Mars than there is for an intelligent designer of the cosmos. That’s not hyperbole. It’s literally true. Zero multiplied by one trillion, after all, is still zero.

There are no photographs or movies of any intelligent designer of the universe. We have plenty of these of the planet Mars. We have sent many robotic probes to the planet Mars to explore it and examine its chemistry. No robotic probes have ever found any sign of an intelligent designer. Almost every night (sometimes there are clouds, or Mars is on the other side of the sun), we can look up and see the planet Mars. Look as hard as you will, but no two people have ever provided any documentation that they’ve seen the intelligent designer at night. The equations of physics explain in minute detail the movements of the planet Mars. No scientific theory, or theological guess for that matter, ever has provided an adequate explanation for the existence of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of the cosmos.

Given the comparative track record of the planet Mars and the supposed intelligent designer, I choose to depend on the system of thought that has brought us knowledge of Mars, rather than the system of supposition that has concocted several outlandish tales about an intelligent designer or group of designers of the universe. Before I am able to enjoy a fanciful story, I’ve got to know where I really stand in the world.

It’s a lovely thing to watch Christian fundamentalists when the official script of their theocratic crusade slips and they accidentally tell the truth.

At the end of last week, the truth about the campaign to force intelligent design theology into Pennsylvania’s Dover Area Schools science classrooms finally was revealed in a form that no one could deny. Bill Buckingham, a former member of the Dover school board, has been prominent proponent of shoving intelligent design theology into the science curriculum. As part of his push for intelligent design theology, he has insisted that intelligent design is science and not religion.

Conspicuously, Buckingham has made several public denials that intelligent design is the same thing as Christian Creationism. Buckingham has insisted that the’s never supported teaching Creationism in the Dover Area Schools.

Now, video footage has been made available to the people of the Dover Area school district showing that Bill Buckingham did indeed, as part of his campaign to support intelligent design theology, promote teaching Creationism in the Dover Area Schools. While a camera was filming, Buckingham clearly stated that his efforts to change the science curriculum in the schools was about countering evolution with “something else, such as Creationism.”

So, it came out from Buckingham’s own lips: The campaign to get intelligent design into the Dover Area Schools was really a campaign for “Creationism”. In Bill Buckingham’s mind, the two are the same thing.

Of course, Bill Buckingham didn’t want anyone to know that. So, he and the other members of the school board worked hard not to use the word “Creationism” when they forced science teachers to denounce evolution in front of public school students, and promote the religious belief of intelligent design.

But then, it seems clear that Bill Buckingham would do just about anything to get fundamentalist Christian ideology into the public schools. He certainly seemed willing to lie. It’s not just the Creationism thing. There’s also the small matter of Buckingham’s involvement in a behind-the-scenes religious conspiracy around Dover to replace science with religion at the local high school.

It seems that some mysterious entity donated 850 dollars toward the purchase of 60 copies of the book Of Pandas and People. Buckingham and other members of the school board required the book, which promotes the religious belief of intelligent design, to be read by public school students. But where did that 850 dollars come from? Making an earlier legal deposition, Bill Buckingham insisted he had no idea. Last week, while being questioned under oath, Buckingham admitted that he knew all along exactly where the money came from. The 850 dollars came from his own church, which had been part of a secret campaign to get Christian theology taught in the local high school.

The trial over the promotion of intelligent design theology by the Dover Area Schools has forever blown the cover of the intelligent design movement. Intelligent design is so thickly mixed up with right wing Christianity that it has become impossible to distinguish the two. Thanks to Bill Buckingham, the clumsy combination comes right out of the preacher’s mouth.

Mr. Sulu is gay. Actor George Takei, who played navigator Mr. Sulu on the orginial Star Trek series, has come out of the closet and acknowledged that he has been in a homosexual relationship with another man for 18 years.

That’s just one man, for 18 years. For a Hollywood actor to accomplish this length in a romantic relationship is exceptionally rare. One would hope that any organization that calls itself “pro-family” would celebrate George Takei’s prolonged monogamy. Of course, these organizations are doing no such thing. Groups like Focus on the Family and the American Family Association don’t really support all families - just those families that follow the demands of Christian fundamentalist theology.

George Takei compares his decision to tell the media about his gay identity to his prior decision to openly discuss his imprisonment in internment camps for Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. Because of right wing Christian fundamentalists’ push for a draconian theocracy in America, gays and lesbians live in a cultural isolation and legal separation that is, for Takei, reminiscent of the injustices of internment.

It shouldn’t be a big deal that George Takei has acknowledged his sexual identity. It shouldn’t make a difference what Takei does with his own life on his own time. But, because right wing Republicans are trying to scapegoat, isolate, and even imprison people like George Takei for nothing more than the kind of sex he chooses to have with another adult, it does matter.

As long as American right wing religious zealots try to force everybody else into their own narrow, arid, and cruel ideology, any open statement of defiance of the fundamentalists’ demands must be regarded as an important and courageous act.

Thanks, Mr. Takei. The only thing you ought to be ashamed of is the hokey language you chose to come out with, when you said, “This is who I am, and by gum, I’m not going to let it be a constraint!” Perhaps you could have used the original, “by gosh” or “by golly”?

Style points aside, Mr. Takei has got a right to be corny, just as much as he’s got a right to be gay. The right wing religious inquisition needs to get its own sense of shame and put its fanatical crusade to a stop. America has got more important things to deal with than telling couples they’re not allowed to get married. Have the right wing Republicans noticed Hurrican Beta slamming into the Central America? That makes this a record hurricane season - and with global warming extending the season, it might not be over with Beta. Let’s get some perspective, and return to the true American way: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Some months ago, bloggers, editorialists and reporters connected the dots on the Bush administration’s policy of “extraordinary rendition.” Extraordinary rendition is the practice by which people are nabbed by the U.S. government, often on U.S. soil, and shipped off to foreign countries where they can be interrogated using means that would be against the law on U.S. soil. Let’s be blunt: those means are methods of torture.

There’s a bill before Congress right now that would remedy this situation. H.R. 952 is written simply, exactly and solely to end the Bush administration’s practice of “extraordinary rendition,” in which people are sent abroad to be tortured. As of today, only 64 members of the House of Representatives support H.R. 952. That’s a shameful 14.7% of House members who are willing to go on record against torture. It’s not only a shame; it’s a scandal! Doesn’t America stand for something better than this? Why is it that 371 members of Congress can’t be bothered to stand up to torture? I really want to know.

I would like to be able to say that the support of 64 members of Congress reflects some momentum. But since May 25, when Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA) signed his name on as a cosponsor, only one other individual, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) has contributed his support to the cause by formally supporting the bill. The anti-torture bill is slipping off the radar screens of our nation’s legislators, replaced by bridges to nowhere in Alaska. The papers aren’t talking about this bill anymore either. Even on the blogosphere, discussion of extraordinary rendition has dwindled. We are letting America stand for torture, and we aren’t even getting upset about it. Think about what this says about us.

At a time when it is becoming more and more apparent that America under the Republicans is soft on torture, Americans of conscience cannot let this bill die here. Chances are, your member of Congress isn’t on board with this anti-terror (for that is what the central element of torture is, my friends) measure. Click here to check and be sure. If your member of Congress is soft on torture, don’t let it slide. Contact that slacker and tell them in no uncertain terms that you expect them to do what would have once been the obvious thing, that you expect them to oppose torture in deed as well as in word, that you expect them to sign on to H.R. 952.

Of course, not a single Republican has stood up to oppose torture by supporting this bill. I don’t expect Republican politicians to exercise a working ethical compass; we all know their “moral values” talk is empty. I’m not even surprised when “moderate” (read: bought-off) Democrats turn their eyes away from their responsibility as leaders. But I am downright galled to find out that members of Congress with an otherwise exemplary progressive record have failed to sign on as cosponsors to H.R. 952.

The following members of Congress have a quality liberal record. They should know better. Their names should be on this bill. They should be easily convinced. And so I’m asking you to call at least one of them today and ask them why they have not cosponsored H.R. 952. Ask them to do so, not just to keep people from being tortured, but to help begin to restore the moral reputation of the United States of America. Please, if you have a moment to spare, call:

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) phone: 202-225-0123
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) phone: 202-225-3601
Rep. Ed Case (D-HI) phone: 202-225-4906
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) phone: 202-225-2406
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) phone: 202-225-6416
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) phone: 202-225-4061
Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) phone: 202-225-3265
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) phone: 202-225-8885
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI) phone: 202-225-3611
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) phone: 202-225-3072
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) phone: 202-225-6506
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) phone: 202-225-5516
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) phone: 202-225-2865
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) phone: 202-225-4365
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) phone: 202-225-6676
Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) phone: 202-225-6190

Ask these people not only to cosponsor H.R. 952, but also to raise a stink about the issue of extraordinary rendition. We cannot allow this thoroughly barbaric practice to continue.

So the news comes out today that Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, has been indicted on charges of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice. If I follow the line I’m hearing on partisan Democratic blogs, I suppose I should be incredibly focused on this indictment, hopeful that this signals the beginning of the end of the Bush administration’s nefarious activities, and vigilant in following the case that will get that Bush administration official, get ‘im get ‘im get ‘im.

But instead of being all rah-rah, I’ve found myself to be of two incompatible minds on this:

Mind 1: POSH, BAH and HUMBUG

I just can’t manage to hop up on the indictments bandwagon.

The focus on the indictment of Bush administration officials is a small-scale personalization of a large-scale political problem. The small-scale problem in the case of these indictments is that there are some evil men in the White House who lied about outing a CIA agent. The large-scale problem being largely ignored is that this occurred as a part of a larger, wholly obvious plot to lie to an entire nation in order to take us into unjustified war. The small-scale problem is important for those who are personally involved in the case, but it doesn’t directly affect our lives except as an avenue for entertainment and a means for the experience of a vicarious vendetta. The large-scale problem has affected us all, is affecting us all, and will continue to affect us all in the long run.

There are other examples of this small-scale vs. large-scale problem in how we approach politics:

A small-scale issue is that Bush played his guitar instead of hopping on a plane to New Orleans after the Gulf Coast got hit by a hurricane. The large-scale issue is that thanks to the Bush administration and other Republicans, we’ve underfunded infrastructure to the point that walls of protection break and once-stellar agencies limp.

A small-scale issue is that Bush is a filthy rich lucky-sperm-club spoiled brat. A larger-scale issue is that the government is filled hugely disproportionately with filthy rich lucky-sperm-club spoiled brats, engaged in acts of lucky-sperm-club protection, while the rest of us are stuck on the outside, clinging onto the gates that keep us from the halls of power and shaking them in impotent fury.

A small-scale issue is that Bush was a big time drunk driver and cokehead. A large-scale issue is that if you’re poor (especially poor and black) in this nation and get caught in substance abuse, you get tossed in a deep, dark hole for decades and you lose you right to vote — but if you’re rich (especially rich and white) in this nation and get caught in substance abuse, you get sent to a country club treatment program “for exhaustion,” where the issue is medicalized, your records are purged of , and you get to move on with your fast track life.

I am guilty on more than an occasional basis of small-scale thinking. It’s easy and it’s emotionally satisfying. I just can’t manage to hop on that bandwagon today, though, and I wonder whether I should do so in the future…. No, to be honest right now I don’t wonder. I feel like I know we’ve got to avoid focusing on these small-scale issues if they keep us from the large-scale ones. You can rip down one I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby the Third Esquire Up The Cream Bun And Jam, and there are forty more members of the power elite ready to take his place. We can’t be happy with the occasional burning of a powerful figure in effigy. We’ve got to shoot for a larger goal: getting the conservative moneyed elite out of power, and finding a way to let everyday people have a greater voice. When that happens, the entire ship of state will right itself to everyone’s benefit.

MIND 2: Of Big Tactical Importance All the above is true if you’re thinking idealistically about things. But practically, come on. How do you change things at the large scale? You do it through a series of small-scale changes. And the great thing about an indictment is that, at least potentially, it leads to a trial. Trials have witnesses, and testimony, and news coverage, which leads to what? What? I want to hear you say it, MIND 1: Discussion of the larger issues involved and as a consequence Shifts in the balance of power. So hoo-rah, they got Libby. Now let’s hope they get Rove next!

I look forward to hearing your own thoughts on this. How do you interprete these events? What’s their significance? What happens next?

The following are the two worst consecutive sentences I’ve run across in my review of medical residency promotional literature this year. Geisinger Health System brags to applicants:

During our last RRC site survey the residency received the highest accreditation possible, CONTINUED FULL ACCREDITATION for five years. The 29-year-old program is not “stuck in a rut.”

Woo hoo! They’re accredited. No, pardon me: ACCREDITED! And they’re not “stuck in a rut!” Honey, pack your bags, we’re movin’ to Pennsylvania!

What’s going on in the world (well, besides the impending indictments) that matters to you? That should matter to us? That we all need to know?

Speak out here.

What messages best capture the current political zeitgeist? Check out this past week’s ten best-selling political bumper stickers at Irregular Goods for a clue:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

For the last few days, I have been on a business trip staying at a hotel near the O’Hare Airport in Chicago. This trip coincides with the transfer of the Irregular Times web site to a new dedicated server. So, I was not surprised when I was unable to access Irregular Times from my hotel room. I contacted our host and our domain registrar, and they confirmed that some resolution problems may be occuring at different locations over the next couple of days.

I was surprised, however, to find out the real reason for my inability to reach Irregular Times online. It turns out that I could not see Irregular Times through my web browser because my hotel has content filter settings on the Internet service it provides. The people at the front desk explained that the filters existed for “security” and for the “safety” of my computer.

It seems that there is something at Irregular Times that these systems regard as unsafe and insecure. As for me, I can’t possibly imagine what that might be. What about you? What have you found here at Irregular Times that makes you feel unsafe, in need of extra security?

There is something about a hotel that makes the world seem much smaller. Within my Irregular-Times-free-suite, it seems that some ideas no longer exist.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a supportive article about the campaign of Dr. James Corwin for Congress. Corwin, a Democrat, is taking on the increasingly right wing radical record of Republican Wayne Gilchrest.

Shortly after I put the article up on Irregular Times Dr. Corwin left us a short note expressing his appreciation for the attention we brough to his campaign, but explaining that he wanted us to change the way we wrote his name. He’s not James, he explained. He’s Jim.

“I appreciate the support of my candidacy by the contributors to, and readers of, Irregular Times. One correction, however, is in order. My name on the Sept. 12, 2006 ballot will appear as “JIM CORWIN”. Furthermore, while not authorizing the buttons and bumper stickers on sale at this and related sites, I would appreciate it if future runs used “DR. JIM CORWIN” or “JIM CORWIN”. Thanks again for your support. My prescription for a healthy democracy: take back the House in 2006!”

What is it that makes Dr. James Corwin so intent upon being called Dr. Jim Corwin? You actually encounter this kind of thing all the time in politics. Congressman James Leach in Iowa insists upon being called Jim. So does Congressman James Walsh in Upstate New York.

It’s a class warfare thing. James is regarded as a formal and upper class name. Jim, on the other hand, is regarded as a name for ordinary guys, guys who wear dirty baseball caps and drive trucks, guys unlike, well, doctors.

Of course, it not just the Jameses of the world who try to convert themselves to a more folksy name when running for public office. Senator Joseph Lieberman, when he campaigns, tries to get everyone to just call him Joe. There’s no such thing as an average Joseph, after all. Lieberman’s neighbor to the north, Senator Kennedy, prefers to be called Ted, though he won’t go so far as to slum it around with the even littler name of Ed.

Well, I still support your candidacy for the House of Representatives, Dr. Corwin, but I can’t bring myself to comply with your special Jim request. If your momma named you James, then that’s good enough for me. I’ll ask politicians to establish their folksy credentials through policies that actually benefit the folks, instead of convenient name changes on our buttons and bumper stickers.