Read my latest story, "The All-Nighter", at 52|250.

I have tons of news clips that say, oh, this new shopping mall is coming or a new Wal-Mart or a new Cabela’s store, and thanks to tax increment financing, this store is going to be built. Well, what is tax increment financing? I’ll tell you what it is. You go to the store with your goods, you pay for it at Wal-Mart, and there’s a very good chance that that store has made a deal with the government that the sales taxes you are required to pay, that government requires you to pay, never go to the government. Instead, those sales taxes are kept by Wal-Mart and used to pay the cost of the store. And typically in those deals, the store is tax exempt, just like a church.

– David Cay Johnston in an interview with Amy Goodman

To be fair, given the great faith placed in shopping’s ability to stimulate the economy as well as the solace I’ve heard people say it provides them (in the form of “retail therapy”), perhaps there’s an argument to be made that such exemptions are appropriate.

Dennis Kucinich is leaving the Democratic presidential primary.  It would seem that the challenges he’s facing in his re-election to Congress have served their purpose.

I know that a lot of left-progressive types will say that this is evidence of careerism, but I think it’s important to understand that what attention he has managed to bring to the very important issues he works on has required the platform provided by his Congressional seat.  Nonetheless, I do wonder if continuing on in that way is the best strategy at this point.  (Let me emphasize that this is a tactical question, not an ethical one.)

But then I’m questioning more and more whether politics can fix anything anymore.  I haven’t believed that elections, politicians, and the maneuvering of politicians could create deep meaningful change (for better or worse) for a long time; culture and the human mind must be altered first so that politics can catch up.  What I had seen politics as was a way to staunch bleeding– and when there’s a war on, that’s an absolute necessity.  But now I have to wonder if even that is possible.  At least, I wonder if the bleeding that I see can possibly be stopped through political action.

Until people can learn to see substance over style and appreciate ugly specifics over beautiful generalities, I’m sure to continue to doubt.  As a writer, I am a cultural worker and must be aware of the ways that I can encourage the necessary changes.

Given that the three candidates the media deigns to allow to debate now that a few states have voted (presumably, the rest of us are not deserving of an equal range of choice) agree the vast majority of the time (even when they say they disagree, their records disprove this), it was inevitable that it would descend to the level of personal commentary.  Choosing between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards isn’t about choosing a set of policies: it’s about choosing a style, an image.

The result of this was clearest in the exchange between Clinton and Obama that is being played ad nauseum by various news outlets, but it’s essential not to pretend that Edwards was actually outside this game– or, as he would put it, above it.  Indeed, he merely created an image of being above it by referring to himself as a “grownup”.  (The implication that his opponents are acting like children is a personal attack.)

This is the sort of debate you get when you choose a candidate to support on the basis of being afraid that your team won’t win the Super Bowl who can win.  Once you make that your primary criterion, you force the candidates to focus on image because until you actually finish voting, the ability to win is only an appearance.

To mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade– the court decision that decided that women do, in fact, have a right to control our own bodies– NARAL Pro-Choice America is asking bloggers for posts on the subject of why it’s important to vote pro-choice.

But before explaining why it’s important, I want to discuss exactly what it means to vote pro-choice. It’s about more than abortion, though abortion is fundamental to individual bodily sovereignty. It’s also about voting for candidates who will ensure that poor women have access to abortion and the full range of reproductive health care; this means that establishing universal health care is part of being pro-choice. So is overturning the Hyde Amendment.  (Health care can’t really be universal so long as the Hyde Amendment is in place.) It’s about undoing the global gag rule that costs women in other countries their lives.  It’s about preserving the rights of women to choose birth control or even surgical sterilization as well as the rights of women to be free from pressure to choose either of these options.

Voting pro-choice is fundamentally about voting for politicians who respect and will fight for the rights of all women– women of every color, class, and (dis)ability– to control their own bodies and their own reproduction.   And there can be no real political liberty for anyone who does not control at least their own body.

I vote pro-choice precisely because of what it means.