Controversy is an expected part of life in the public sphere, because any life that well-scrutinized is going to show some flaws. It’s even more of a usual occurrence in politics because people are actively looking for weaknesses to exploit. Some politicians make it too easy though, with infidelities or illegal business dealings. Unfortunately, controversy paints with a wide brush, and while a politician may be guilty of an infraction in just one small area of their life, all of their decisions and abilities are called into question by it. With Bill Clinton, a personal abuse of position in regard to marital infidelity and sexual malfeasance in the office was used by his enemies to undermine his legislative efforts across the board.
When political enemies don’t have a leg to stand on, though, they have to dig for nontroversies - controversies stemming from non-issues, distortions, and matters of almost no actual importance. Last week, after a few journalists complained about the President’s teleprompters blocking their camera angles and after a very slight mix-up in the order of speeches at an event, and suddenly Barack Obama’s use of a teleprompter became a major issue. This is a doubly effective tactic of distraction because it goes after one of Barack Obama’s greatest strengths; his strengths as a writer, speaker, and as politician who’s able to control himself from making fatal blunders of speech by staying on message. But since the invention of the technology, every President has used it, as well as actors, journalists, executives, etc. And really, why not, when a teleprompter makes it easier to read prepared remarks and still see your audience without losing your place, unlink printed remarks or note cards. It also ensures that you won’t ramble off on a topic and that you’ll be sure to say everything you want to say. No one has any problem with a President writing a speech, and they’d have no problem with him then reciting it word-for-word, but suddenly through in a teleprompter and make it Barack Obama, and they assume a conspiracy wherein someone is pulling his strings and forcing him at gunpoint to read it. This is even harder to believe about Barack Obama who, unlike his most recent predecessor, is well-known for being actively involved in the formulation of his speeches.
Then Barack Obama went on The Tonight Show, which was certainly unusual, but given that George Bush made appearances on Dr. Phil, did not seem to be a sudden and drastic change in the Presidency. People tried to make a controversy out of this, as though if only he spent that 20 minutes in the oval office instead of on television, that he could turn our economy around once and for all. When that nontroversy failed to capture the public’s rancor, the smear merchants then hooked onto a poorly chosen but innocuous comment. Days later, headlines rang out with faux-outrage about the President disparaging the Special Olympics by comparing his paltry bowling score to that of a handicapped person. Even actual journalists quoted him as saying that his score was like “the special olympics or something.” However, those of us who actually watched AND listened to the interview saw that his comment about the Special Olympics came not immediately after telling us his bowling score, but after Jay Leno applauded sarcastically and gave feigned encouragement saying “that’s very good, Mr. President.” It was to this support, despite his performance, that Barack Obama was comparing the Special Olympics. He wasn’t saying that his bowling skills were those of a Special Olympian, but that Jay Leno was acting towards him the way spectators of the Special Olympics acted towards participant, with positive encouragement even when they are unsuccessful. Was it in bad taste? Yes, maybe a little. Was it offensive? No. Does it say anything bad about his character, his view of the handicapped, or his abilities as President? Most definitely not. So why are we wasting time on it?
Everyday there are new nontroversies to distract or to entertain, to enrage or obfuscate, while elsewhere the real problems and offenses are overlooked and underreported. By focusing on inane minutiae, we make it more difficult to solve real problems, which is of course precisely what some people want. Barack Obama’s political enemies see his popularity, and see that his plans have a chance of succeeding, two things which would spell disaster for their political futures. They could offer better alternatives, or support him in hopes of gaining that same popularity and public trust, but instead they choose to distract and make people forget the reason’s they like Barack Obama by giving them false controversies.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Sad State of the Fourth Estate
They call it “comedy.” They call it “fake news.” What we saw last night on The Daily Show, though, was neither fake nor funny (well, a little funny.) Last night, Jon Stewart was joined by Jim Cramer, former hedgefund manager and current host of CNBC’s “Mad Money.” This interview was a week in the making, after Rick Santelli cancelled on an appearance that would have coincided with a scathing piece The Daily Show had assembled about CNBC’s failure to see the financial crisis coming, warn their viewers, and then admit their obvious mistakes and place blame anywhere near where it belongs. Jim Cramer took particular offense to the implication and took his views public on his NBC sister stations, thus incurring an even better response from Jon Stewart and The Daily Show.
Anyone who hasn’t seen this interview really should, regardless of their interest in finances or in The Daily Show, because it is a bold example of something that The Daily Show is rarely credited with and so many actual news programs are lacking: journalism. Jon Stewart brought Jim Cramer on who, to his credit, had accepted the invitation to discuss the issues face to face rather than continuing the back-and-forth in the media sphere and the two of them discussed Stewart’s initial point about the state of business reporting at CNBC. What Jim Cramer and many of the people reporting on this interview missed was the broader point about the state of journalism. For all of the talk about liberal media and its fringe views, the fact is that the Fourth Estate has never been more corporate. Newspapers, cable news, even blogs are often beholden to corporate parents and sponsors to operate, and as the economy has worsened and traditional models have become obsolete, they’ve had their resources diminished.
Recently, newspapers that have lasted more than a century have folded under the economic pressures, and even biggest cable news networks have had to cut staff and close bureaus around the world. As their budgets have been scaled back, the budgets of corporate PR divisions and firms have risen and gotten better at delineating information as they want it to be seen. That has left the public in a dangerous position where they are under-informed yet always inundated with talk. News outlets, afraid of losing what little influence and access they have, and unable or unwilling to do the serious, long-term investigation they were once famous for, have now traded excellence for efficiency. Stories with an easy angle are repeated ad nauseam; boisterous personalities are given priority over knowledgeability; softball interviews are offered in exchange for access to the biggest names.
What Jon Stewart demonstrated is what people like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were famous for: speaking truth to power. Jim Cramer himself as well as being a representative of CNBC has influence and authority in the business community, and as such has a responsibility that both he and his network failed to honor. Additionally, as a journalist, he failed to ask the tough questions, dig deeper, and find the truth before reporting to his audience. If he had, he might have had a better, more informed opinion to give to people who rely upon or value his financial advice. Instead, as he said on The Daily Show, he would give a forum for business leaders who would lie to him and then he would share that information - without question or critical investigation - with an audience that took his authority and certitude for veracity.
In today’s White House briefing, one reporter even praised Jon Stewart’s demonstration of serious journalism in a question to Press Secretary Gibbs. What does it say about the state of our media when a White House reporter, a post given normally to the most inquiring of serious journalist, praises a supposed mere comedian? It says that in the 21st century the satirist is alive and well while the traditional investigate reporter is threatened with replacement by news spokespeople. Many of the people we find reporting the news are doing simply that: reporting what they are told, and not trying to find the stories or uncover the truth.
It’s easy to marginalize The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, but in the guise of comedy, they are often more willing and more able to speak the hard truths. The Daily Show, as an entertainment and comedy program, doesn’t rely on getting access to CEO’s or politicians, so they can ask the hard questions without fear of being cut-off. What Jim Cramer, CNBC, and the mainstream media need to remember is that just as they need stories, there are people who need their stories told. The folks at CNBC may want big-name guests to interview, but at the same time those big-names need the pulpit that CNBC provides. It is a mutual relationship and though in recent years the power has shifted away from the news outlets and to those being covered, the media need only remember that they are the gatekeepers to the public forum and that their is always an audience for hard news. For evidence look no further than the ratings Jon Stewart received on Thursday night, and the ratings points that CNBC has been losing since this all began.
Anyone who hasn’t seen this interview really should, regardless of their interest in finances or in The Daily Show, because it is a bold example of something that The Daily Show is rarely credited with and so many actual news programs are lacking: journalism. Jon Stewart brought Jim Cramer on who, to his credit, had accepted the invitation to discuss the issues face to face rather than continuing the back-and-forth in the media sphere and the two of them discussed Stewart’s initial point about the state of business reporting at CNBC. What Jim Cramer and many of the people reporting on this interview missed was the broader point about the state of journalism. For all of the talk about liberal media and its fringe views, the fact is that the Fourth Estate has never been more corporate. Newspapers, cable news, even blogs are often beholden to corporate parents and sponsors to operate, and as the economy has worsened and traditional models have become obsolete, they’ve had their resources diminished.
Recently, newspapers that have lasted more than a century have folded under the economic pressures, and even biggest cable news networks have had to cut staff and close bureaus around the world. As their budgets have been scaled back, the budgets of corporate PR divisions and firms have risen and gotten better at delineating information as they want it to be seen. That has left the public in a dangerous position where they are under-informed yet always inundated with talk. News outlets, afraid of losing what little influence and access they have, and unable or unwilling to do the serious, long-term investigation they were once famous for, have now traded excellence for efficiency. Stories with an easy angle are repeated ad nauseam; boisterous personalities are given priority over knowledgeability; softball interviews are offered in exchange for access to the biggest names.
What Jon Stewart demonstrated is what people like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were famous for: speaking truth to power. Jim Cramer himself as well as being a representative of CNBC has influence and authority in the business community, and as such has a responsibility that both he and his network failed to honor. Additionally, as a journalist, he failed to ask the tough questions, dig deeper, and find the truth before reporting to his audience. If he had, he might have had a better, more informed opinion to give to people who rely upon or value his financial advice. Instead, as he said on The Daily Show, he would give a forum for business leaders who would lie to him and then he would share that information - without question or critical investigation - with an audience that took his authority and certitude for veracity.
In today’s White House briefing, one reporter even praised Jon Stewart’s demonstration of serious journalism in a question to Press Secretary Gibbs. What does it say about the state of our media when a White House reporter, a post given normally to the most inquiring of serious journalist, praises a supposed mere comedian? It says that in the 21st century the satirist is alive and well while the traditional investigate reporter is threatened with replacement by news spokespeople. Many of the people we find reporting the news are doing simply that: reporting what they are told, and not trying to find the stories or uncover the truth.
It’s easy to marginalize The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, but in the guise of comedy, they are often more willing and more able to speak the hard truths. The Daily Show, as an entertainment and comedy program, doesn’t rely on getting access to CEO’s or politicians, so they can ask the hard questions without fear of being cut-off. What Jim Cramer, CNBC, and the mainstream media need to remember is that just as they need stories, there are people who need their stories told. The folks at CNBC may want big-name guests to interview, but at the same time those big-names need the pulpit that CNBC provides. It is a mutual relationship and though in recent years the power has shifted away from the news outlets and to those being covered, the media need only remember that they are the gatekeepers to the public forum and that their is always an audience for hard news. For evidence look no further than the ratings Jon Stewart received on Thursday night, and the ratings points that CNBC has been losing since this all began.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
On Love and Ideology
I’ve always been fascinated by people like Jim Carville and Mary Matalin who hold politically opposite points of view and yet love one another enough to want to spend their lives together. Of course, that relationship is fascinating for other reasons as well, but it seems strange to me people who can compartmentalize like that, especially people who have very clear and strong political beliefs. Plenty of people pay little attention to politics, and switch parties from election to election, so in that case it makes perfect sense to me that they could love just about anyone regardless of ideology because it means so little to them. For people that do really care, though, I have trouble seeing how they can maintain relationships, friendships, romances with people at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Take, for instance, my family. My father is about as politically opposite from me as you can get. There are certain things we can agree on, but they are usually general observations about the human condition and have little, if anything, to do with policy. The differences are stark enough that if I wasn’t related to him - if he was just someone I worked with or met elsewhere - I wouldn’t be able to get past these differences.
At other times, I’ve been interested in or even dated women who, when I found out their political beliefs, became completely different people in my eyes. Where once I had some adoration or affection, I started to have antagonism. Ideology isn’t like a taste in music or favorites pastimes, where they all may share some similarities or you can grow to appreciate them. A person’s ideology shapes their perception of the world, and when two people have opposing views, it means that they see the world in two completely distinct and antithetical ways.
It doesn’t just go for politics, obviously, but for things like religion and philosophy as well. If you believe there is no higher power, how can you have real love and affection for someone who does. In your mind, they are not merely wrong but deluded, and their beliefs mean that they, in return, think you are misguided. Sure, these are things people can look past, and many do, but what kind of love can there be between people when you think that a person is fundamentally wrong about their worldview?
I think it’s easy for people to accept one another’s religious beliefs, even if they are contrasting, because so much of religion is hypothetical. Without real evidence to contradict one another, and with most people having their own doubts about the certainty of religion, it’s easier to assume that you may both be right about some things and wrong about others. When it comes to political ideology, there is evidence in the real world - examples to be drawn from - and those beliefs lead to actions with real-world consequences. A lot of religions and philosophies share common themes about the best way to live your life, and they may be all equally valid, but political ideologies are rarely about more than one valid answer to the same question. With religion, it’s as though each group has a different map to get you to the grocery store, with both eventually leading you there. With Democrats and Republicans, one route will get you to the store, the other will lead you to a dentist’s office; sure, a few people may need to get to that dentist’s office, but the rest of us are trying to get groceries.
So how can people with fundamentally different perspectives truly share anything resembling love? Is it possible to be friends with or actually respect someone who you believe is destroying the world one vote at a time? If love is about trusting someone and accepting them for who they are, can you love someone whose values you don’t trust and whose beliefs you yourself can’t accept?
Take, for instance, my family. My father is about as politically opposite from me as you can get. There are certain things we can agree on, but they are usually general observations about the human condition and have little, if anything, to do with policy. The differences are stark enough that if I wasn’t related to him - if he was just someone I worked with or met elsewhere - I wouldn’t be able to get past these differences.
At other times, I’ve been interested in or even dated women who, when I found out their political beliefs, became completely different people in my eyes. Where once I had some adoration or affection, I started to have antagonism. Ideology isn’t like a taste in music or favorites pastimes, where they all may share some similarities or you can grow to appreciate them. A person’s ideology shapes their perception of the world, and when two people have opposing views, it means that they see the world in two completely distinct and antithetical ways.
It doesn’t just go for politics, obviously, but for things like religion and philosophy as well. If you believe there is no higher power, how can you have real love and affection for someone who does. In your mind, they are not merely wrong but deluded, and their beliefs mean that they, in return, think you are misguided. Sure, these are things people can look past, and many do, but what kind of love can there be between people when you think that a person is fundamentally wrong about their worldview?
I think it’s easy for people to accept one another’s religious beliefs, even if they are contrasting, because so much of religion is hypothetical. Without real evidence to contradict one another, and with most people having their own doubts about the certainty of religion, it’s easier to assume that you may both be right about some things and wrong about others. When it comes to political ideology, there is evidence in the real world - examples to be drawn from - and those beliefs lead to actions with real-world consequences. A lot of religions and philosophies share common themes about the best way to live your life, and they may be all equally valid, but political ideologies are rarely about more than one valid answer to the same question. With religion, it’s as though each group has a different map to get you to the grocery store, with both eventually leading you there. With Democrats and Republicans, one route will get you to the store, the other will lead you to a dentist’s office; sure, a few people may need to get to that dentist’s office, but the rest of us are trying to get groceries.
So how can people with fundamentally different perspectives truly share anything resembling love? Is it possible to be friends with or actually respect someone who you believe is destroying the world one vote at a time? If love is about trusting someone and accepting them for who they are, can you love someone whose values you don’t trust and whose beliefs you yourself can’t accept?
Friday, February 13, 2009
New Adventures in Bad Parenting: United Kingdom.
The United States takes a lot of flak for our cultural depravity. We’re considered to be fat, lazy, reactionary, shallow, over-sexualized, even jingoistic. Yes, some of that is sometimes true, but the fact is that most cultures are guilty of these things, and not just in the west. The United States, though, is often made the example of everything wrong with the modern world, like we’re the impudent child compared to old Europe’s class and dignity. Well, not this week.
Over in Great Britain this week, a 13-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl have just become parents. Hardly anyone would be shocked if this occured in the United States, since much fodder for jokes is made about inner-city troublemakers, rural southern rednecks, or western Mormon broods. It’s easy to forget that even a country that places “Great” in their title is full of irresponsible and foolhardy people. These kids, though, are not the biggest problem in this equation.
Nine months ago, when Alfie Patten was only 12, he had sex 1 time with the older Chantelle Steadman. I may be naive, but it boggles my mind that a 12 year old, one who’s voice hadn’t even broken yet, would be having sex but that’s not to say I can blame him because at that age you hardly ever know what you’re doing and can easily just do things without thinking. Where the problem lies is that neither of these kids realized what they were doing or that the consequences of their actions could be a human life. Then, once they found out about the pregnancy, they decided it would be good to have the baby, but also didn’t want to tell anybody.
You could chalk this up to teenagers being teenagers and concerned more about getting in trouble than doing the right thing. I, instead, see a vicious pattern repeating. Chantelle’s parents are both unemployed and have 5 other children who they support on government assistance, while Alfie’s parents are divorced and he has 8 siblings. If you’re a father who only gets to see your children some of the time, and that time is divided between 9 children, how much of that time do you think is going to be spent at soccer matches and movies and how much do you think is going to be spent building trust and talking about sex and responsiblity?
These kids should have known better, first to have sex when they weren’t prepared for it, but putting that aside, they should have known to use protection, and after that, they should have known that this was such a big deal that they should have told their parents. The fact is, they didn’t know these things in part because their parents dropped the ball. It’s hard enough being a good parent under the best of circumstances, and gets exponentially harder when you start to early, can’t financially support them, have an unstable home life, and then have too many children too boot.
It’s unfortunate that now these kids will probably also repeat the mistakes of their parents. They certainly won’t last as a couple, and neither of them works yet so already they can’t take care of the child on their own. Education will now be secondary to them, and thus limit their opportunity to improve their lives and the life of their child, and kids who are having unsafe sex at 13 are just as likely to have unsafe sex at 20, so I’m sure more kids are on the way.
So who’s to blame? Is it just the parents? Is it the teenagers? Is it the schools or the media? Like our stimulus here in the States, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, it’s a reminder that children are children and that not talking to them about sex doesn’t stop them from having it, but it does stop them from being prepared when they do. Maybe if they’d had proper sex education, or had attentive parents who were comfortable talking to them about sex, then maybe they wouldn’t have rushed into it, or if they had, would have been wise enough to use protection.
Over in Great Britain this week, a 13-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl have just become parents. Hardly anyone would be shocked if this occured in the United States, since much fodder for jokes is made about inner-city troublemakers, rural southern rednecks, or western Mormon broods. It’s easy to forget that even a country that places “Great” in their title is full of irresponsible and foolhardy people. These kids, though, are not the biggest problem in this equation.
Nine months ago, when Alfie Patten was only 12, he had sex 1 time with the older Chantelle Steadman. I may be naive, but it boggles my mind that a 12 year old, one who’s voice hadn’t even broken yet, would be having sex but that’s not to say I can blame him because at that age you hardly ever know what you’re doing and can easily just do things without thinking. Where the problem lies is that neither of these kids realized what they were doing or that the consequences of their actions could be a human life. Then, once they found out about the pregnancy, they decided it would be good to have the baby, but also didn’t want to tell anybody.
You could chalk this up to teenagers being teenagers and concerned more about getting in trouble than doing the right thing. I, instead, see a vicious pattern repeating. Chantelle’s parents are both unemployed and have 5 other children who they support on government assistance, while Alfie’s parents are divorced and he has 8 siblings. If you’re a father who only gets to see your children some of the time, and that time is divided between 9 children, how much of that time do you think is going to be spent at soccer matches and movies and how much do you think is going to be spent building trust and talking about sex and responsiblity?
These kids should have known better, first to have sex when they weren’t prepared for it, but putting that aside, they should have known to use protection, and after that, they should have known that this was such a big deal that they should have told their parents. The fact is, they didn’t know these things in part because their parents dropped the ball. It’s hard enough being a good parent under the best of circumstances, and gets exponentially harder when you start to early, can’t financially support them, have an unstable home life, and then have too many children too boot.
It’s unfortunate that now these kids will probably also repeat the mistakes of their parents. They certainly won’t last as a couple, and neither of them works yet so already they can’t take care of the child on their own. Education will now be secondary to them, and thus limit their opportunity to improve their lives and the life of their child, and kids who are having unsafe sex at 13 are just as likely to have unsafe sex at 20, so I’m sure more kids are on the way.
So who’s to blame? Is it just the parents? Is it the teenagers? Is it the schools or the media? Like our stimulus here in the States, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, it’s a reminder that children are children and that not talking to them about sex doesn’t stop them from having it, but it does stop them from being prepared when they do. Maybe if they’d had proper sex education, or had attentive parents who were comfortable talking to them about sex, then maybe they wouldn’t have rushed into it, or if they had, would have been wise enough to use protection.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
New Adventures in Bad Parenting: Octuplets Edition!
This is one case that has been well worn, so I’ll keep it short. You’ve all heard about the single mother who already had 6 children under the age of 8, all through in vitro fertilization, and just had octuplets. This would be irresponsible behavior from a woman with a lot of support, and maybe it could be at least somewhat understandable if this had been an accidental pregnancy through usual means, but neither is the case. She is single, underemployed, in debt, and doesn’t even have an extended family to help her with these children. Her own mother thinks her behavior is unconscionable.
Here’s the kicker, though, and the part you may not know: she’s now asking for your help. After making the rounds of the talk show circuit, talking about how she doesn’t care if she doesn’t have a job or money because she’ll give these kids love (though with 14 kids, each one isn’t going to get a huge helping of love with her attention and resources divided) she then set up a website asking for donations to help her. So she had 6 kids that she couldn’t afford and couldn’t take care of, then spent money to have a doctor implant her with 8 more, and now after taking both welfare and food stamps wants taxpayers to give her even more out of their pockets. This behavior is unforgivable, and I doubt it’ll be long until she’s having more children and finding new loopholes to make other people pay for her irresponsibility.
People like her say that what really matters is that they will love their children. Well, guess what, that’s not enough, because nearly all parents love their children, and most of them love their children enough to give them time, and attention, and to provide them with the resources to have a home and health and education. It’s hard enough living in this world, and even harder when you start life in an overcrowded house where your mother is so overburdened that she barely has time for you, and certainly doesn’t have the time or money to give you every opportunity to succeed. It’s also harder when she can’t afford to feed you properly.
Child abuse comes in many forms. Sometimes it’s hitting your child. Sometimes, it’s neglecting your child or being emotionally abusive. Often, though, it’s enough to be selfish and to have too many children, too quickly, and without planning for it. She does this not because she thinks she can give these children a great life, but because she wants it. She wants lots of kids, she wants to be given lots of love, and she wants to be a mother, but being a real mother requires more than just having children.
Here’s the kicker, though, and the part you may not know: she’s now asking for your help. After making the rounds of the talk show circuit, talking about how she doesn’t care if she doesn’t have a job or money because she’ll give these kids love (though with 14 kids, each one isn’t going to get a huge helping of love with her attention and resources divided) she then set up a website asking for donations to help her. So she had 6 kids that she couldn’t afford and couldn’t take care of, then spent money to have a doctor implant her with 8 more, and now after taking both welfare and food stamps wants taxpayers to give her even more out of their pockets. This behavior is unforgivable, and I doubt it’ll be long until she’s having more children and finding new loopholes to make other people pay for her irresponsibility.
People like her say that what really matters is that they will love their children. Well, guess what, that’s not enough, because nearly all parents love their children, and most of them love their children enough to give them time, and attention, and to provide them with the resources to have a home and health and education. It’s hard enough living in this world, and even harder when you start life in an overcrowded house where your mother is so overburdened that she barely has time for you, and certainly doesn’t have the time or money to give you every opportunity to succeed. It’s also harder when she can’t afford to feed you properly.
Child abuse comes in many forms. Sometimes it’s hitting your child. Sometimes, it’s neglecting your child or being emotionally abusive. Often, though, it’s enough to be selfish and to have too many children, too quickly, and without planning for it. She does this not because she thinks she can give these children a great life, but because she wants it. She wants lots of kids, she wants to be given lots of love, and she wants to be a mother, but being a real mother requires more than just having children.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Hypocrisy as Ideology
Remember the terrifying days when the Republican Party was working on their “permenant majority?” The Democrats were outnumbered in every branch of the Federal Government, and the Republicans flaunted rules wherever they could get away with it. One thing that stood in their way of completely rolling right over the Democratic opposition in the Senate was the filibuster, a long-established guardian of minority opinions. Well, you know how Republicans feel about minorities (ooooh, low blow), and they weren’t having it. There would be one voice, and no dissent, you know, like a real Republic...like Caesar’s Rome.
That’s when they started floating the idea of their “Nuclear Option,” once again showcasing how Republicans care more about labeling things than about actual substance. With this, they were going to eliminate the filibuster, which they thought was undemocratic and being used by Democrats as sore losers to stop Republicans from doing the people’s business. How dare those Democrats… the Republicans would never act so shamefully.
Well, they didn’t proceed, and the filibuster remained, luckily for them. See, now that the Democrats have a majority, the Republicans have decided that, in fact, they kinda dig the filibuster. Before, the filibuster was the plain girl at the party, but now the Democrats have cornered all the hot chicks, and the Republicans are sad and lonely in the corner, and willing to lower their standards a bit to avoid going home alone.
How much do Republicans love filibusters? Well, during the last session, the filibuster was used 100 times. By comparison, when the Republicans were last in charge and the Democrats needed to use the filibuster, it was used only 34 times. What made the Republicans change their mind about filibusters? It certainly wasn’t some change in ideology, simply a change in strategy, which really IS the core Republican ideology. The Republican Party claims to have a platform that is pro-life, small government, state’s rights, but really all of that is lip service. Their real platform is whatever puts and keeps them in power. Right now, the only thing stopping them from being irrelevant in the Senate, as they mostly are in the House, is their ability to extend debate through use of a filibuster.
But let’s not let the Democrats off the hook. See, they’re not so great with the strategy. Democrats didn’t win majorities and the White House with some grand strategy, they stumbled into it almost be accident because the Republicans screwed things up so thoroughly that everyone in America started to realize that Democrats were the ones with all the good ideas. Except some Democrats are now contemplating the idea of abolishing the filibuster so that they can roll right over the Republicans in the Senate. Hopefully, they’ll use their nerdy, policy-wonk skills to, unlike those arrogant Republicans, realize that the American people can be fickle and that their power is not permenant. To abolish the filibuster may help them today, but then they’ll be kicking themselves when the Republicans are back in power and trying to push through the Drilling-Oil-In-National-Parks-For-Use-In-Fire-Bombs-for-Abortion-Clinics ACT (or DOINPFUIFBAC ACT...catchy, right?)
That’s when they started floating the idea of their “Nuclear Option,” once again showcasing how Republicans care more about labeling things than about actual substance. With this, they were going to eliminate the filibuster, which they thought was undemocratic and being used by Democrats as sore losers to stop Republicans from doing the people’s business. How dare those Democrats… the Republicans would never act so shamefully.
Well, they didn’t proceed, and the filibuster remained, luckily for them. See, now that the Democrats have a majority, the Republicans have decided that, in fact, they kinda dig the filibuster. Before, the filibuster was the plain girl at the party, but now the Democrats have cornered all the hot chicks, and the Republicans are sad and lonely in the corner, and willing to lower their standards a bit to avoid going home alone.
How much do Republicans love filibusters? Well, during the last session, the filibuster was used 100 times. By comparison, when the Republicans were last in charge and the Democrats needed to use the filibuster, it was used only 34 times. What made the Republicans change their mind about filibusters? It certainly wasn’t some change in ideology, simply a change in strategy, which really IS the core Republican ideology. The Republican Party claims to have a platform that is pro-life, small government, state’s rights, but really all of that is lip service. Their real platform is whatever puts and keeps them in power. Right now, the only thing stopping them from being irrelevant in the Senate, as they mostly are in the House, is their ability to extend debate through use of a filibuster.
But let’s not let the Democrats off the hook. See, they’re not so great with the strategy. Democrats didn’t win majorities and the White House with some grand strategy, they stumbled into it almost be accident because the Republicans screwed things up so thoroughly that everyone in America started to realize that Democrats were the ones with all the good ideas. Except some Democrats are now contemplating the idea of abolishing the filibuster so that they can roll right over the Republicans in the Senate. Hopefully, they’ll use their nerdy, policy-wonk skills to, unlike those arrogant Republicans, realize that the American people can be fickle and that their power is not permenant. To abolish the filibuster may help them today, but then they’ll be kicking themselves when the Republicans are back in power and trying to push through the Drilling-Oil-In-National-Parks-For-Use-In-Fire-Bombs-for-Abortion-Clinics ACT (or DOINPFUIFBAC ACT...catchy, right?)
This Record Doesn't Have a B-Side
When you were a kid, everyone had that friend who always messed things up. Maybe you were friends because of geographic proximity, or because your parents knew one another, or maybe you had limited options, but this friend wasn’t particularly great to have around. You’d invite them over and they’d get you in trouble, or break your stuff, and yet you would invite them over again and again, and get more of your toys broken. It was a vicious cycle and you felt trapped in it, and it almost never occured to stop letting that kid play with your toys.
We find ourselves in the midst of a global recession, one that any good economist (and plenty of lay-people like myself) saw coming a mile away. The last 8 years saw the coporate class raiding the cabinet, stretching every dollar, squeezing every profit, borrowing on borrowed money. The most outlandish, implausible, counter-intuitive economic theories were tested in the hopes of creating some sort of engine of capital, where profits constantly rose and everyone became a billionaire, without ever having to come back down to Earth. Clearly as we’ve seen, and as the last election has confirmed, those theories have failed. They are false.
Cutting taxes doesn’t automatically spur economic growth. Cutting regulations won’t free up the martketplace to police itself. Wealth, does not in fact, trickle down. What we saw time and again was that the only real motivation in an unregulated market is to make the maximum short-term profit. If cutting jobs meant slightly higher profit margins, then it was done, even if it did limit longterm growth and undercut the customer base. If slightly more money could be made by using toxic chemicals, with only a slight chance that you’d ever have to pay out money in court, then it was done. What we are left with now, though, are companies drowning in debt, without the adaptibility or the talent to pull themselves out of it, stuck in a cycle of overpaying executives while reducing output. Perhaps the market will sort itself out, but the thing that people don’t mention is that while the market is sorting itself out, millions of people will lose their jobs, companies will collapse, and years will go by.
That’s why Government steps in. It is not the place of the Government to control the economy or the lives of it’s people, but to boost the economy when it can and ease the burden when it falters. This is precisely the reason that we need a stimulus package. Presently, our economy is not running at capacity, and the options are to either give it a jump or let it continue to wind down. What this means is that where consumers aren’t spending, and companies are losing money, the Government needs to temporarily make up the difference, so that we can continue to run at full speed.
Here’s where it is win-win for us, though. Stimulus spending needs to have tangible results, it has to provide real jobs and funds here in the United States in the present. That means that we can put people to work building schools, repairing bridges, and doing scientific research. For now, they continue to get paid instead of going unemployed which also means that they will continue to go out and spend money at other business - good for everybody. It also means that when we come out on the other side of this recession, we’ll have greater infrastructure which will make it easier to do business. There will be fewer delays on highways for shipping, better educated workers coming out of the public school system, and production technologies that are more advanced and cheaper. How can we go wrong?
By inviting over our bad friends who break our toys. The Republican Party, the party that has cut regulations, made it easier to speculate and operate on imaginary earnings, the party that has allowed the wages of the majority of Americans to decline so that they can’t afford to buy things and allowed debt to climb, that has let the rich get richer and take their wealth overseas while the government has paid the price...that party which created such an obvious mess of the nation’s affairs that they were voted out of power in both the Legislative and Executive branches, they are continuing to peddle the same out wares they’ve been peddling for more than a decade. We gave them power and resources and they broke the economy, and now they are asking us to continue to play with our toys. It’s time that we ask them to go home.
Obstructionism is not an ideology, and we need to stop pretending that the Republican ideas are a valid counterpoint in any discussion. They have no ideas, except to do more of what got us into this trouble in hopes the it could mean one more day of bonuses or lower taxes, even if it only digs us deeper into a hole. This economy is bad for them too, and yet they are willing to take a little more money now even if it means that there will be far less money to be made in the future. The Democrats want to create jobs, now, by putting people to work on projects that need to be done and have needed to be done for a long time. The Republicans want to cut taxes, hoping that with the marginal money you save you’ll suddenly open a small business and buy a sports car. The Democrats want to improve our infrastructure to make us more efficient and make our daily lives easier and less expensive. The Republicans want to cut taxes, something that would give the Governement less money at a time when it has trillions of dollars of debt to pay off to foreign creditors and several wars to fight for billions of dollars a day. The Democrats want to improve educational opportunities and stimluate new industries to grow here in the United States, injecting our nation with new capital. The Republicans want to cut taxes, so that education, government grants, public works projects, and regulation will also have to be cut.
Why are we pretending that they can be part of the solution, that we should have to make compromises or listen to their tired ideas? On the news, they act like these two strategies are equal and simply different ways to solve a problem. That is false. One way may solve the problem, and even if it doesn’t will improve infrastructure and provide jobs for a while. The other way will put us further into debt without providing tangible relief to most people, and will only prolong this recession. I know it, the 60 percent of the American people who dissapprove of how the Republican party has handled this crisis know it, and it’s time that we acknowledge it. If the Republicans can’t stop making a mess, then we should stop inviting them to the party.
We find ourselves in the midst of a global recession, one that any good economist (and plenty of lay-people like myself) saw coming a mile away. The last 8 years saw the coporate class raiding the cabinet, stretching every dollar, squeezing every profit, borrowing on borrowed money. The most outlandish, implausible, counter-intuitive economic theories were tested in the hopes of creating some sort of engine of capital, where profits constantly rose and everyone became a billionaire, without ever having to come back down to Earth. Clearly as we’ve seen, and as the last election has confirmed, those theories have failed. They are false.
Cutting taxes doesn’t automatically spur economic growth. Cutting regulations won’t free up the martketplace to police itself. Wealth, does not in fact, trickle down. What we saw time and again was that the only real motivation in an unregulated market is to make the maximum short-term profit. If cutting jobs meant slightly higher profit margins, then it was done, even if it did limit longterm growth and undercut the customer base. If slightly more money could be made by using toxic chemicals, with only a slight chance that you’d ever have to pay out money in court, then it was done. What we are left with now, though, are companies drowning in debt, without the adaptibility or the talent to pull themselves out of it, stuck in a cycle of overpaying executives while reducing output. Perhaps the market will sort itself out, but the thing that people don’t mention is that while the market is sorting itself out, millions of people will lose their jobs, companies will collapse, and years will go by.
That’s why Government steps in. It is not the place of the Government to control the economy or the lives of it’s people, but to boost the economy when it can and ease the burden when it falters. This is precisely the reason that we need a stimulus package. Presently, our economy is not running at capacity, and the options are to either give it a jump or let it continue to wind down. What this means is that where consumers aren’t spending, and companies are losing money, the Government needs to temporarily make up the difference, so that we can continue to run at full speed.
Here’s where it is win-win for us, though. Stimulus spending needs to have tangible results, it has to provide real jobs and funds here in the United States in the present. That means that we can put people to work building schools, repairing bridges, and doing scientific research. For now, they continue to get paid instead of going unemployed which also means that they will continue to go out and spend money at other business - good for everybody. It also means that when we come out on the other side of this recession, we’ll have greater infrastructure which will make it easier to do business. There will be fewer delays on highways for shipping, better educated workers coming out of the public school system, and production technologies that are more advanced and cheaper. How can we go wrong?
By inviting over our bad friends who break our toys. The Republican Party, the party that has cut regulations, made it easier to speculate and operate on imaginary earnings, the party that has allowed the wages of the majority of Americans to decline so that they can’t afford to buy things and allowed debt to climb, that has let the rich get richer and take their wealth overseas while the government has paid the price...that party which created such an obvious mess of the nation’s affairs that they were voted out of power in both the Legislative and Executive branches, they are continuing to peddle the same out wares they’ve been peddling for more than a decade. We gave them power and resources and they broke the economy, and now they are asking us to continue to play with our toys. It’s time that we ask them to go home.
Obstructionism is not an ideology, and we need to stop pretending that the Republican ideas are a valid counterpoint in any discussion. They have no ideas, except to do more of what got us into this trouble in hopes the it could mean one more day of bonuses or lower taxes, even if it only digs us deeper into a hole. This economy is bad for them too, and yet they are willing to take a little more money now even if it means that there will be far less money to be made in the future. The Democrats want to create jobs, now, by putting people to work on projects that need to be done and have needed to be done for a long time. The Republicans want to cut taxes, hoping that with the marginal money you save you’ll suddenly open a small business and buy a sports car. The Democrats want to improve our infrastructure to make us more efficient and make our daily lives easier and less expensive. The Republicans want to cut taxes, something that would give the Governement less money at a time when it has trillions of dollars of debt to pay off to foreign creditors and several wars to fight for billions of dollars a day. The Democrats want to improve educational opportunities and stimluate new industries to grow here in the United States, injecting our nation with new capital. The Republicans want to cut taxes, so that education, government grants, public works projects, and regulation will also have to be cut.
Why are we pretending that they can be part of the solution, that we should have to make compromises or listen to their tired ideas? On the news, they act like these two strategies are equal and simply different ways to solve a problem. That is false. One way may solve the problem, and even if it doesn’t will improve infrastructure and provide jobs for a while. The other way will put us further into debt without providing tangible relief to most people, and will only prolong this recession. I know it, the 60 percent of the American people who dissapprove of how the Republican party has handled this crisis know it, and it’s time that we acknowledge it. If the Republicans can’t stop making a mess, then we should stop inviting them to the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
