Originally Posted on "Slippery Slope"
Sunday, February 7, 2016
A good column by Dana Milbank. The Utter Nastiness of Ted Cruz. I honestly can not understand how anyone in their right mind couldn't see through this weasel. He's another Joe McCarthy; no decency or integrity and will lie and destroy to advance himself. And just like Joe McCarthy, he'll eventually wither away.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
The juxtaposition of Dana Milbank's column today - Trump Brings Bigots Out of Hiding next to thoughtful piece by Danielle Allen on "We the Politically Correct People" inadvertently have some symmetry. The dark side of the technological communications revolution in recent years is the online growth of subcultures filled with seething, bigoted, often uneducated people. They are fed a steady diet of resentment, fear and conspiracy theories by the likes of Alex Jones and his ilk and are predisposed to this recruitment because they lack any basic foundation in principled civics (I have long believed that the greatest failure in this country is in our high school civics instructors). They sit in their basements and fume over the "others" who are "taking their country" whether they are Muslims, bankers, bureaucrats or Democrats, and commune with one another in a bubble of wild unhinged fantasies. Now they are taking to the streets and the public square in large, organized and bitter mobs. Most of us in decent society and in the so-called mass media have ignored or dismissed this phenomenon as a marginal fringe. But the Republican campaign has demonstrated that it is a virus that is infecting and growing not only in the party, but the body politic. It threatens informed, educated discourse and even our national integrity. That is the ugly bigotry that Dana Milbank now sees bubbling to the surface. Obviously we can't restrict or confine the free speech of these charlatans, but we can expose them. The best inoculation to this illness is to shine a bright light on these hate peddlers with forceful and authoritative truth. As Danielle Allen concludes, 'we, the people, can cure ourselves of our incipient barbarism only as we have done it before: by calling it out, contesting it and working hard for alternatives.'
Monday, March 4, 2013
Beyond applying this to Chinese hackers, it was also describes all those folks who think Washington is efficient at scheming and conspiracy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/25/what-chinas-hackers-get-wrong-about-washington/ What China’s hackers get wrong about Washington By Ezra Klein , Updated: February 25, 2013 “Start asking security experts which powerful Washington institutions have been penetrated by Chinese cyberspies,” report my colleagues Craig Timberg and Ellen Nakashima, “and this is the usual answer: almost all of them.” “All of them,” in this case, is exactly as inclusive as it sounds. The targets aren’t just the White House, the Federal Reserve and the major federal agencies. They’re Washington’s law firms, think tanks, news organizations, human rights groups, contractors, congressional offices and embassies. The Chinese are hacking everybody and anybody. The Chinese have been so aggressive in their hacking that it’s become something of a status symbol in Washington, the institutional equivalent of appearing in the New York Times wedding section. If you’re not being hacked by the Chinese, do you really matter? A basic fact behind China’s cyberwar — and Russia’s cyberwar, and Iran’s cyberwar — is that America spends more on its military than the next 13 top-spending nations combined. We spend about five times what the Chinese do, and we’ve been spending that much for a long time. So China and others are looking for a weakness, in case they ever feel they need to use it. If they could knock out our financial markets and our energy grid and make it impossible for our air traffic control systems to work, that’s at least something. And it turns out that much of our critical digital infrastructure is run by private companies who bristle at government requests to harden their systems. Another dimension of the cyberwar is simple economic espionage. China and Russia want to steal the intellectual property of American companies, and much of that property now lies in the cloud, and if it doesn’t lie in the cloud, it sits on the hard drive of some middle manager who earnestly clicks on e-mails that tell him his PayPal account has been hacked. Stealing those blueprints and plans and ideas is an easy way to cut the costs of product development. But neither military nor economic imperatives explain why China is investing so much time hacking law firms and newspapers in Washington. What the Chinese want from the Brookings Institution is the Master Key. According to The Washington Post: “Chinese intelligence services [are] eager to understand how Washington works. Hackers often are searching for the unseen forces that might explain how the administration approaches an issue, experts say, with many Chinese officials presuming that reports by think tanks or news organizations are secretly the work of government officials — much as they would be in Beijing.” The Chinese look at Washington, and they think there must be some document somewhere, some flowchart saved on a computer in the basement of some think tank, that lays it all out. Because in China, there would be. In China, someone would be in charge. There would be a plan somewhere. It would probably last for many years. It would be at least partially followed. But that’s not how it works in Washington. What the Chinese hackers are looking for is the great myth of Washington, what I call the myth of scheming. You see it all over. If you’ve been watching the series “House of Cards” on Netflix, it’s all about the myth of scheming. Things happen because the Rep. Frank Underwood has planned for them to happen. And when they don’t happen, it’s because someone has counterplanned against him. This is the most pervasive of of all Washington legends: that politicians in Washington are ceaselessly, ruthlessly, effectively scheming. That everything that happens fits into somebody’s plan. It doesn’t. Maybe it started out with a scheme, but soon enough everyone is, at best, reacting, and at worst, failing to react, and always, always they’re doing it with less information than they need. That’s been a key lesson I’ve learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly implementing long-term schemes. Democrats fear Grover Norquist’s Monday meetings, the message discipline across Fox News and talk radio, and Focus on the Family. Republicans believe the press corps is out to get them and Hollywood has dedicated itself to providing crucial air support. People are very good at recognizing disarray and incompetence on their side of the aisle, but they tend to think the other side is intimidatingly capable and unified and unburdened by scruples or normal human vulnerabilities. But they’re not. This city may be rife with plans, but no plan survives first contact with Congress. Nothing will disabuse you of the myth of scheming faster than listening to key congressional staffers speculate on the future of a bill. Communication between various political actors — a crucial ingredient in any serious plan — is surprisingly informal and inadequate. Members of Congress and their staffs don’t really have access to secret, efficient networks of information. Instead, they read Roll Call and the Hill and The Washington Post and keep their televisions tuned to cable news, turning up the volume when a colleague involved in a bill they’re interested in appears on the screen. Then everyone sits around and parses what they just heard with all the intensity of a 13-year-old boy analyzing a hallway conversation with a crush. And in a way, that’s a strength. Human beings like to think otherwise, but we’re not very good planners, at least not when matched up against reality. I almost feel bad for the Chinese hackers. Imagine the junior analysts tasked with picking through the terabytes of e-mails from every low-rent think tank in Washington, trying to figure out what matters and what doesn’t, trying to make everything fit a pattern. Imagine all the spurious connections they’re drawing, all the fundraising bluster they’re taking as fact, all the black humor they’re reading as straight description, all the mundane organizational chatter they’re reading. They’re missing our real strength, the real reason Washington fails day-to-day but has worked over years: It’s because we don’t stick too rigidly to plans or rely on some grand design. That way, when it all falls apart, as it always does and always will, we’re okay.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
For the life of me, I just don't get this obsession with guns. You'd think these folks were feeling threatened with use of their cars, or flat screen TVs or -- heaven forbid -- their smartphones. In other words, something useful, even necessary to everyday, modern life. From my experience and observation I just can't see where a gun fits into that practical life. There's seems to be this fear that we'll be threatened by bad guys with guns and have to be prepared with a weapon of our own. So we're all urged by the gun advocates to carry a piece with us, just on that off chance that some nut will come blasting away in the local fast food joint. Really? I have enough trouble remembering everything when I walk out in the morning; umm, car keys; check, wallet; check; cell phone, check and everything for the day. And to this anxiety-riddled list I'm supposed to add a gun? For most of us, keeping track where we're going with what is a trauma of modern life. Furthermore, odds are I could go several lifetimes and never face a situation where I actually needed it. And if I did, the odds are further that the circumstances would make it useless - or that it was used against me.* So guns strike me as an anachronism; kind of like spinning wheels. There was obviously a time when people needed to hunt for their own food, just like there was a time when they needed to make their own clothes. But now we have McDonalds and Target, so we don't need to do either. It's all conveniently processed and shrink-wrapped so we don't have to get our hands bloodied or prick our fingers. Now there are, of course, those who enjoy the murder of animals and who studiously and at great expense plot the blasting of Bambi, ostensibly celebrating our baser nature as carnivorous hunters ourselves. Somehow, in the age of drive-up windows and Giant Foods regression to our neolithic past doesn't strike me as a noble or productive use of one's time or a way to advance 21st century society. But it's their right, so to each his own. Yet we're further told that we all need a six-shooter on our hips -- and an AR-15 under our beds -- to keep the bad 'ol government in check. There might be a 1776-type Tea Party rally of patriots who need to grab our modern day muskets and rush the White House and storm up the Capital steps to go seize those miscreants who were put there by...us. Ironically, this paranoid argument comes from people who seem most dedicated to defense of a Constitution based on elected representation that arguably (but in my humble opinion) does a pretty good job -- warts and all -- of representing some pretty far flung, even bizarre, points of view. So this sounds more like the threats of a disgruntled, sour-grapes minority not happy with the politics of their elected representatives, excuse me; fellow citizens. But don't get me started on internet-fed conspiracies and fanaticism. (calling Alex Jones). Ah, but the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Well, so was slavery and the election of Senators by state legislatures and the 3rd Amendment prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in private homes (now there's 21st century relevancy!). All as antiquated as the need for a militia, or for that matter, guns as a practical tool of modern living. But let's say we take the suggestion of our gun-toting friends and equip everyone with a gun. Just like the 'ol west of legend. An armed society is a polite society, right? So let's make sure every mom and dad and their teenagers, employer and employees, bartender and customer has a gun on their hip as they negotiate the trials and tribulations of everyday life. Are there any bets we'll see a drop in shootings? But we should be prepared for any and all contingencies, whether it's a pimply faced, bi-polar teenager with a grudge, a rascally Democrat bent on giving me health care or a resurgence of boll weevils. And to that end, we should all defend to the death our right to bear spinning wheels!!
Sunday, April 8, 2012
That Mitt Romney has taken to the same sort of distortions and fabrications that have characterized the looney right might seriously discredit his appeal to moderate independents; which was supposed to be his strength. Great documentation here by Dana Milbank in The Post
Sunday, March 25, 2012
A great column by Kathleen Parker.....again, (American Id-eology) Tracing much of the country's problems right to the source. If people wonder about why there is so much dysfunction in our political and social dialogue, they should look in the mirror.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
President Obama crooned a bit of Al Green the other day, receiving some generous and surprised praise for his chops. Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney shortly followed with tortured renditions of America, The Beautiful.
Both the song selections -- and their performance -- struck me as metaphors for voting and cultural blocks, but also for where they're moving. Obama, the first black president, also embodies a hipness that more Americans, and especially younger voters, are increasingly comfortable with, and even identify as part of their character. Once in Europe, I realized in interacting with minorities there that they were distinctly different, and, more importantly, that I had more in common with African-Americans than I did with even white Europeans. As a white American, I had a black American's culture in my own. It had been blended into our common music, art, language and attitudes. That is not only continuing, but is a sensibility that more Americans are coming to accept; even if they don't quite realize it.
Also by a wide variety of social measures, Americans are more tolerant; whether with birth control, gays, marijuana, or even vulgarities. While the social conservative, Christian movement will continue to be a dominant force in this country, it will struggle with the other quintisential American stream of laissez faire tolerance.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
As they have in so many instances, the GOP has been playing on American's ignorance and fears in demonizing Europe. This editorial in the Washington Post today captured the lunacy nicely:
Thursday, January 19, 2012
This so accurately reflects my interpretation of the President and his approach - that it is designed to be, by his nature, more strategic, more patient and more mature than our bickering, short-sighted, shallow, attention-deprived culture can quite grasp.
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
Jan 16, 2012 12:00 AM EST
The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
Friday, December 30, 2011
While I'm not a big fan of his, Charles Krauthammer had a column today regarding the odds of intelligent life in the universe and the fate of humanity. What struck me was one of his conclusions; that the contentious and exasperating art of politics is ultimately the crucible on which all of humanities accomplishments rest. To survive, art, music, mathematics, all of man's achievements are dependent on our ability to manage our own relations.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Well said..... The magical world of voodoo ‘economists’ By Steven Pearlstein, Published: September 10 If you came up with a bumper sticker that pulls together the platform of this year’s crop of Republican presidential candidates, it would have to be: Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-magical-world-of-voodoo-economists/2011/09/07/gIQARBiEIK_story.html And if there was ever any doubt about the hijacking of the Republican party by the reactionary right and their fault in the increasingly dysfunctional government, these studies document it...... http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-the-tea-party-is--and-isnt/2011/09/10/gIQABcVQIK_story.html
Friday, July 29, 2011
Here's a good editorial from the Boston Globe on the irresponsibility of the orthodox neophytes in the House. More importantly, it highlights the naivete of the public that buys into simplistic ideas about government with slick and easy "sloganized" solutions.
Actually, I should be cheering them.....they are sowing the seeds of their own, and their party's, destruction.
I've often fallen victim to the notion that in political matters there is equal blame on all sides. But like many, I've now come to the conclusion that that equanimity has been exploited by bullies who don't understand the meaning of democracy and are single-mindedly dedicated to running rough-shod over anyone or group that opposes them. They are not fair or gentlemen, and those of us on the other side should quit accepting some measure of blame for impasses that are clearly not of our making. Paul Krugman had an excellent column on this in today's New York Times.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The current situation in Madison, Wisconsin is a microcosm - or emblematic -- of the larger cultural-political conflict being waged on the public on a larger stage. The Wisconsin governor is not only insisting on dramatic wage, pension and health care concessions from public employees -- he's also bent on revoking their collective bargaining ability. He apparently has not talked to them, doesn't want to and just wants them to roll over.
This strikes me as similar to the attitude dominating the right wing in Washington and in states across country. They are not interested in discussions with opponents, they are not interested in compromise. They are, instead, more interested in burying their fellow citizens; in vilifying their character (and patriotism) in denying them any democratic rights to negotiate. How ironic they hold themselves us as such staunch defenders of American democracy when so often their agenda is to limit it for anyone who doesn't adhere to their world view.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Per that last entry about the emptiness of the right's agenda and its domination by bizarre paranoid fantasies; today Harold Myerson had an editorial in the Washington Post on the very subject -- Land of the Paranoid. This is especially relevant as it comes on the heels of the Tuscon shooting which, despite their denials, is a direct result of this kind of demonizing and polarizing ranting.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Two columns recently together offered a wonderful illustration of what's so seriously wrong with the Republican party -- especially as dominated by the delusional right wing. Steven Pearlstein in the The Washington Post on Jan 6 published Let's Kill This GOP Canard in which he wonderfully itemizes the complete lack of common sense, financial and employment sense, public health sense, and even decency that animates what passes for Republican policy. He notes that much of the intransigence smacks of McCarthy era redbaiting and "rather than contributing to the political dialogue, it is a substitute for serious discussion. And the fact that it continues unabated suggests that Republicans are not ready to compromise or to govern." The reason for that disposition was wonderfully described by E.J. Dionne in The Post on the same day with "Conservative Advice for a Congress of Professors," in which he observes that the Republican leadership (and especially their grassroots) is animated by abstractions; idealized theories that are worshiped with no practical value. As Dionne says, "Their rhetoric is nearly devoid of talk about solving practical problems - how to improve our health care, education and transportation systems, or how to create more middle-class jobs. Instead, we hear about things we can't touch or see or feel, about highly general principles divorced from their impact on everyday life." We hear the same old canards....cut taxes (even while ignoring ballooning deficits), cut spending, tort reform as a remedy for health care. There seems to be a complete and overriding denial of anything that is inconvenient or conflicts with the ideology -- whether it is factually based or not. The Speaker, unbelievably, adheres to this notion the America has the best health care system in the world, when in fact it repeatedly rates below at least a dozen other countries and at double the cost! The best we can hope for is that their rhetoric is pandering to their base (as insulting as that is) who rally to fantasies of an idealized past that never existed and paranoid demonizing of enemies who they need "to take our country back from." If that's the case, maybe there's hope that there's some rationality lurking under the vapid surface.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Apparently the new mantra of the Right and Republican leadership - that America is somehow morally and even spiritually special or "chosen" among nations and peoples. What the hell does that mean?
______________________________________________________________________
Like many "moderate progressives" I've always been hopeful that moderates would prevail in both parties to work toward a consensus on some major issues. But it's become increasingly clear that the Republican party has been captured and dominated by extremists who not only won't cooperate, but who are dedicated to destroying the "other side". A complete scorched earth policy. Never mind our own legitimate rights and voices in the process. While I might have normally agreed with other moderates that Nancy Pelosi should step aside, I've come to believe that like the school yard bully, the Right will never appreciate our rights until they are smacked in the face with a 2x4. We can play obstructionist "hell no" just as well as they can. And Pelosi is talented enough to do it - and we should demand it of her. The country clearly needs consensus, but we cannot be run over by bullies.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
An accurate description of the paranoia that underlies the GOP crusade on immigration:
Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 11, 2010; A17
As Lindsey Graham and his fellow Republicans explain it, their sudden turn against conferring citizenship on anyone born in the United States was prompted by the mortal threat of "anchor babies" -- the children of foreigners who scurry to the States just in time to give birth to U.S. citizens.
The Republican war on the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is indeed directed at a mortal threat -- but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party....
Friday, July 9, 2010
Direct from a well respected conservative, Michael Gerson, on the risks the conservative nutjobs pose to the Republicans (or ultimate benefits to Democrats):
For the GOP, a risky wave to ride or turn back
By Michael Gerson
Friday, July 9, 2010; A19
The Republican Party is ascendant, emboldened -- and on the verge of debilitating mistakes.
There is little doubt about Republican ascendance. In June 2008, Democrats enjoyed a nearly 20-point lead in the generic congressional ballot; today they are behind. Approval for President Obama among independents has fallen below 40 percent for the first time in his presidency. Vice President Biden recently protested that he saw no "grand debacle" coming in November for Democrats, thereby giving a name to Democratic fears. A debacle seems precisely what's in store.
But the problem with political waves is that they generate misleading momentum and exaggerated ideological confidence. Parties tend to interpret shapeless public discontent as the endorsement of their fondest ambitions. Obama mistook his election as a mandate for the pent-up liberalism of his party. Some Republican activists are intent on a similar but worse mistake.
The Republican wave carries along a group that strikes a faux revolutionary pose. "Our Founding Fathers," says Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, "they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."
For the whole piece.... - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804274.html
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
And in the news.....
Arizona congressional candidate fires guns in ad; Idaho awaits the apocalypse
Arizona voters who don't pull the lever for Republican congressional candidate Pamela Gorman have this to consider: She just might shoot them.
Gorman, in a new ad, fires a machine gun and pistols scores of times as a goofy sounding announcer calls this year "our best shot at changing Congress. 'Course that all depends on the caliber of our candidates."
Gorman, identified by the announcer as a "conservative Christian and a pretty fair shot," is seen blowing up the word "TAXES" in a graphic. "Gorman, she can take care of herself," the voice says.
A soft, feminine voice then says: "I'm Pamela Gorman and I approve this message." The ad ends in a hail of gunfire.
Seems the good folks of Idaho have been watching too much Glenn Beck.
The Idaho Republican Party has just come out with a special new Armageddon-edition platform. Among its planks: A loyalty test for candidates, a recommendation that Idaho withhold federal taxes, restricting marriage to "naturally born" men and women (in vitro babies need not apply?), and, best of all, proposing that residents stock up on gold and silver as a sensible precaution for the coming apocalypse.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, May 26, 2010; A02
Republicans want to take over the House in the fall, but there's a problem: They don't have an agenda.
So on Tuesday, they set out to resolve that shortcoming. They announced that they would solicit suggestions on the Internet, then have members of the public give the ideas a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Call it the "Dancing With the Stars" model of public policy.
Republicans were very pleased with their technological sophistication as they introduced the Web site, America Speaking Out a ceremony at the Newseum. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who created the program, said that to get software for the site, "I personally traveled to Washington state and discovered a Microsoft program that helped NASA map the moon."
Using lunar software is appropriate, because the early responses to the Republicans' request for ideas are pretty far out:
"End Child Labor Laws," suggests one helpful participant. "We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories."
"How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way," recommends another. "That fake so called birth certificate is useless."
"A 'teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!" a third complains. "And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."
House Republicans, meet the World Wide Web.
GOP leaders seemed to have something else in mind as they rolled out their new site. "I would expect the ideas that come out of this Web site and the involvement of our members will lead to ideas that we can attempt to implement today," House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) proclaimed. "We want to continue to offer better solutions to address the problems that America is facing, and we see this as a giant step forward, directly engaging the American people in the development of those solutions."
Such as?
"Build a castle-style wall along the border, there is plenty of stone laying around about there." That was in the "national security" section of the new site.
"Legalize Marijuana, cause, like, alcohol is legal. Man. Also." That was in the "traditional values" section.
"I say, repeal all the amendments to the Constitution." ("American prosperity" section.)
"Don't let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide. . . . I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet 'I' on their chests -- for 'illegal'!!!" (Filed under "job creation.")
The Republican leaders attempting to demonstrate their technological savvy at the Newseum brought to mind former Alaska senator Ted Stevens's observation that the Internet is a "series of tubes."
The Web site not only "has cutting-edge technology," asserted Rep. Peter Roskam (Ill.), "but a winsome design that is easy for people to interact with."
Lest you think Republicans are just discovering the Internet, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) let it be known that "House Republicans have tweeted five times as many as the House Democrats. Leader Boehner has almost five times as many Facebook fans as Speaker Pelosi." Boehner grinned and gave a double thumbs-up.
Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) contributed to the discussion by twice giving out the wrong address for the new site.
House Republicans had experimented with reality-show-style policymaking before. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) has been having Internet users vote on which government programs to cut, but that experiment was more tightly controlled.
This one, McCarthy said, would do nothing less than "change the course of history." The Web site filters out obscenity and the like, but it hasn't kept out hundreds of ideas: some serious, some offensive and some so wacky they surely must be Democratic sabotage.
"Let kids vote!" recommended one. "Let's make a 'Social Security Lotto,' " proposed another. "What dope came up with the idea of criminalizing a parent's right to administer corporal punishment?" a third demanded.
Some contributors demanded action to uncover conspiracies involving the 9/11 attacks and the "NEW WORLD ORDER." One forward thinker recommended that we "build the city of the future somewhere in a non-inhabit part of the United States, preferably the desert."
Some of the uglier forces of the Internet found their way to the House Republican site. "I oppose the Hispanicization of America," said one. "These are not patriotic people." Another contributor had parody in mind (we hope): "English is are official langauge. Anybody who ain't speak it the RIGHT way should kicked out."
But Republicans might want to take a hard look at the suggestion that "we need to reframe the discussion" about the BP oil spill to counteract the "environmental whackos" worried about wildlife. Republicans, this person proposed, should argue that "BP is creating a new race of faster dolphins. These fish are unable to compete against the fish of other countries, but now their increased lubrication will allow them to fly through the water. Faster fish = good."
Friday, May 21, 2010
This is an especially important message:
Bipartisanship shouldn't be a political death sentence
By Ron Wyden
Friday, May 21, 2010; A17
The message that many partisan activists want me and my congressional colleagues to take away from this week's primaries and Utah's recent GOP convention is that engaging in bipartisanship is tantamount to surrendering your political party's most-prized principles. In fact, some in my party will undoubtedly criticize me for writing kind words about my friend Sen. Bob Bennett, just as some in Bob's party thought that his working with a Democrat was sufficient grounds for losing his seat in the U.S Senate. In other words, many of the most committed activists believe that the only way for Republicans to win legislatively is for Democrats to lose, and vice versa.
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, legislating is treated as if there is a giant congressional scoreboard that will ultimately determine which party gets to be in charge. What one side is for legislatively, the other is unalterably against. Many believe that is the only way to achieve clear victory.
While it is certainly true that legislating can be (and is) turned into a zero-sum game, despite what you hear on cable news, not every issue has diametrically opposed Democratic and Republican ideologies. In fact, not only are there policy areas on which Democrats and Republicans agree but when it comes to legislating, many issues present opportunities to build on the best ideas of both parties. No single party has a lock on all the good ideas.
I still think I had a pretty good idea for health reform -- despite its rejection by significant Democratic and Republican leaders -- but so did Bob Bennett. I was on the Senate floor three years ago when Bob walked across the center aisle to tell me he was willing to work with me on health reform. I had been meeting with him and other Senate colleagues for many weeks to talk about the Healthy Americans Act and what I believed was a historic opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together on an important issue.
Ideologically, Bob and I couldn't be more different. He's pro-life. I'm pro-choice. He voted for the Iraq war; I didn't. If Bob has ever seen a tax break he didn't like, I am unaware of it. But one thing Bob and I have in common is our fundamental belief that we were elected to do more than just get reelected, that once elections are over we have a duty to try to govern even if it means working with people with whom we don't always agree.
While I'll let others debate what became of the Wyden-Bennett health-reform bill, our effort married the best, most principled ideas that both parties had been promoting for decades. Like most Democrats, my fundamental principle was guaranteeing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. Like most Republicans, Bob felt strongly that market forces be used to promote expanded consumer choice and competition. Our legislation did both. As long as I would help Bob achieve his marketplace principles and avoid bigger government, Bob said he could back me on getting everyone insured.
Working in a bipartisan fashion can lead to watered-down legislation, yes, but principled bipartisanship can also lead to a value-added, better result. Personally, I believe that both sides can get much more of what they want by working together than by simply trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. By working with those with whom we don't necessarily see eye to eye, we are forced to work harder, to test our ideas and to consider solutions that we may never have thought of on our own. Moreover, if Democrats and Republicans ever stop fighting each other, they might finally find the strength to defeat the interest groups that all too easily exploit the partisan divide.
Bob Bennett is one of the most conservative men I have ever known, but he is also one of the best. Even in defeat, he told me that he doesn't for one minute regret working with me to try to do something important for the country, which is why I consider his loss so tragic. The country needs more senators who think like Bob Bennett, not fewer.
While it may be tempting to read the recent elections as a rejection of principled bipartisanship, polling shows that the majority of the American people are sick of the status quo, and the status quo is a Washington obsessed with legislating as though Congress's sole function is to play a wholly partisan, zero-sum game. The American people want us to put our nation ahead of party allegiances. They want us to do more than devise ways to gain and maintain power. They want us to be constructive with that power.
The regrettable irony of what transpired in Utah's Republican convention is that a small number of hyperpartisan activists have just ensured that Utah's contribution to the Senate will be less bipartisanship and more of the status quo in Washington. If that is the change that partisans are offering the nation, let's make certain the American public understands.
The writer is a Democratic senator from Oregon.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
A nice piece that humanizes and puts to shame the prejudice American Muslims must face.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404677.html
At the risk of elevating my snobbishness....the paper had another great example of the civic stupidity of the American public. It seems that a poll from the Pew Research Center finds that about six in 10 adults approve of Arizona's new immigration law granting local police greater authority in combating illegal immigration.
The law has sparked protest from those who oppose several of its provisions. But the Pew poll suggests these measures are broadly popular. Nearly three-quarters approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying that they are in the country legally, two-thirds said police should be allowed to detain those who cannot prove their status, and 62 percent favor allowing police to question those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. Overall, 59 percent say they approve of the law, while 32 disapprove.
Are there really so many pathetically stupid people?!?!
Friday, March 19, 2010
As we reach the final vote on health care reform, a couple of columns that put the event in perspective:
As passage of health reform nears, a historic chance to help fix Washington, too
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, March 19, 2010; A19
It's shaping up to be a great weekend here in Washington.
I'm not just talking about the spectacular weather or another upset-filled NCAA basketball tournament. I'm talking about the prospect of a quasi-climactic vote in the House that would finally have the United States join the rest of the industrialized world in offering health insurance to all its citizens.
Sometimes, those of us who live here and participate in political life can get a bit cynical. We tend to focus on the process or the gamesmanship or the unsavory compromises. Which is why it is important at moments such as this to get your head out of the weeds, look at the Capitol dome in the distance and remember how lucky you are to have a front-row seat to one of the world's longest-running historical dramas.
What strikes me about the lead-up to this weekend's health-care vote in the House is how quiet things actually are. (Full column with the link below)
AND.....
Democrats discover the benefits of taking a stand on health reform
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, March 19, 2010; A25
If health-care reform finally staggers across the finish line, it will be because President Obama and congressional Democrats recognized -- at long last -- the truth that has been staring them in the face for more than a year: They'll be better off politically if they just try their best to do the right thing.
No matter what the Democrats attempt or how they go about it, Republicans are going to complain, obstruct and attack. That's the inescapable lesson from this whole exercise, and it's hard to fathom why it took so long to sink in. The Democrats looked ridiculous, sitting around the campfire and singing "Kumbaya" while the opposition was out in the forest whittling spears and arrows.
As if to prove my point, some Republicans are already talking about trying to repeal the reform bill even though it hasn't been passed. This hardly seems in the spirit of bipartisanship -- which the GOP, with cynical but skillful rhetoric, has elevated into some kind of saintly virtue.
(Full column at the link here) - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803044.html
Thursday, February 18, 2010
A number of excellent columns have cropped up lately defining the national mood, its problems and remedies; particularly as it relates to populist expectations and disappointments and, to me more importantly, the actual culpability of the public at large. First a nice feature by that excellent writer Anna Quindlen, that appeared in Newsweek, followed by a piece by George Will that ran in the Washington Post.
The first few lines - followed by a link to the full story:
"By the time the current political cycle is over, the term "populist" will have become a buzzword so misused and abused that it will be leached of all real meaning. The dictionary definitions refer to the agrarian political party of the late 19th century, then segue into the use of the term that modern politicians have learned to embrace: "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people."
This is an excellent piece by George Will; not really for the headline of Sarah Palin (which is true) but more for the problems faced by populism and it's prospects. The link to the full story is below, but two really great paragraphs....:
"America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832......
"Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.
Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation. "
Full Column- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021703507_pf.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
I've come to the conclusion that I'm an unabashed elitist. While the conventional mood that somehow Congress and the President aren't paying enough attention to the mob....this populist uproar over every manner of perceived error; from bailouts to spending, etc....I think they're paying TOO MUCH attention to them. The mob has no clue about what the issues are and how they're addressed. And worse, they're led astray by all manner of partisan charlatans with a political agenda. Case in point; in the recent senate election in Massachusetts, of all the people who voted for him because they wanted to stop health care reform, 41% of them couldn't explain why!!
Monday, February 1, 2010
I was struck recently by the disillusionment by some friends over the unfulfilled promises of President Obama; namely the lack of C-Span coverage in every meeting, the involvement of lobbyists in the administration, etc. These folks are 1) not involved in politics or policy and 2) not educated or have ever been involved in management - which explains much of their frustration. I want to say, "well, duh!!" It's not their cynicism that bothers me. It's their naivete turned anger.....or maybe idealism and innocence. They remind me of little kids who find out there's no Santa Claus and teenagers who get their hearts broken. It's rough when you find out the world is a cruel, cold place and that reality is much more pragmatic than the public myths.
Monday, January 18, 2010
I recently received one of those mass distributed e-mails with a snide right wing mantras about 'conservatives are for freedom; liberals want to take it away' with a series of banal examples (Unfortunately, I deleted it). On the face of it, one could just as easily contrive an inaccurate and misleading comparison from a liberal perspective. "Liberals believe women should have reproductive privacy; conservatives believe the government should be in your bedroom. Liberals believe everyone should be entitled to a working wage; conservatives believe corporations come before people. Liberals believe people should be free of religious tyranny; conservatives believe government should promote religion. Liberals believe people should have access to health care; conservatives sick people should die quickly. Etc...you get the picture.
But what's more revealing is that this message was ever sent at all. It is a common observation among many on the left that these crude, baiting, provacative stink bombs are invariably thrown into mixed company by those with cartoonish right wing agendas. Rarely, if ever, do you see or hear unsolicited liberals broadcast tirades or characitures. Perhaps that is because most liberals' interpersonal and social habits reflect their politics; with a strong dose of empathy, sensitivity and even just plain old good manners. That's why most don't pop off at a neighborhood party or e-mail their entire address book with some personal, simple-minded political spitball.
And maybe the lack of those traits are why these things always come from right-wingers. That's what these e-mails really say.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Whenever I hear people complain about "finding the truth" or the "bias in mainstream media" it's usually because that truth or bias does not reflect their own beliefs....and so it goes with everyone across the spectrum. Today there was a nice column in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson regarding the media, the search for objectivity and the messiness of democracy.
Democracy's demolition derby
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, December 28, 2009; A15
It's been an education, my four decades in Washington journalism: an anniversary that prompts this personal reflection. In 1969, I arrived as a young newspaper reporter. Journalism appealed to me because it offered an excuse to learn about how things worked -- to satisfy my curiosity -- and provided an antidote to shyness. It was a license to ask people questions. I have never regretted my decision, in part because I always doubted I could do anything else. I wasn't smart enough to be an engineer and would have been a lousy lawyer, chafing at representing other people's beliefs. The pursuit of truth seemed a higher calling.
This was a common conceit among journalists of my generation. We would reveal what was hidden, muddled or distorted. The truth would set everyone free. It sustained good government. We were democracy's watchdogs and clarifiers. One thing I learned is that these satisfying ideas are at best simplifications -- and at worst illusions. Truth comes in infinite varieties; every story can have many narratives. There are always new facts, and sometimes today's indisputable fact qualifies or rebuts yesterday's. ..........
Friday, November 27, 2009
This is a great editorial from Michael Gerson in the Washington Post today (11/27/09) that wonderfully captures the death of journalism, coupled with the proliferation and fragmentation of unverified gibberish as a source of information for too many people -- which makes reasoned discussion almost impossible. A great read:
Journalism's slow, sad death
By Michael Gerson
Friday, November 27, 2009
Like the nearby Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, the Newseum -- Washington's museum dedicated to journalism -- displays dinosaurs. On a long wall near the entrance, the front pages of newspapers from around the country are electronically posted each morning -- the artifacts of a declining industry. Inside, the high-tech exhibits are nostalgic for a lower-tech time when banner headlines and network news summarized the emotions and exposed the scandals of the nation. Lindbergh Lands Safely. One Small Step. Nixon Resigns. Cronkite removes his glasses to announce President Kennedy's death at 1 p.m. Central Standard Time.
Behind a long rack of preserved, historic front pages, there is a kind of journalistic mausoleum, displaying the departed. The Ann Arbor News, closed July 23 after 174 years in print. The Rocky Mountain News, taken at age 150. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which passed quietly into the Internet.
What difference does this make? For many conservatives, the "mainstream media" is an epithet. Didn't the Internet expose the lies of Dan Rather? Many on the left also shed few tears, preferring to consume their partisanship raw in the new media.
But a visit to the Newseum is a reminder that what is passing is not only a business but also a profession -- the journalistic tradition of nonpartisan objectivity. Journalists, God knows, didn't always live up to that tradition. But they generally accepted it, and they felt shamed when their biases or inaccuracies were exposed. The profession had rules about facts and sources and editors who enforced standards. At its best, the profession of journalism has involved a spirit of public service and adventure -- reporting from a bomber during a raid in World War II, or exposing the suffering of Sudan or Appalachia, or rushing to the site of the World Trade Center moments after the buildings fell.
By these standards, the changes we see in the media are also a decline. Most cable news networks have forsaken objectivity entirely and produce little actual news, since makeup for guests is cheaper than reporting. Most Internet sites display an endless hunger to comment and little appetite for verification. Free markets, it turns out, often make poor fact-checkers, instead feeding the fantasies of conspiracy theorists from "birthers" to Sept. 11, 2001, "truthers." Bloggers in repressive countries often show great courage, but few American bloggers have the resources or inclination to report from war zones, famines and genocides.
The democratization of the media -- really its fragmentation -- has encouraged ideological polarization. Princeton University professor Paul Starr traced this process recently in the Columbia Journalism Review. After the captive audience for network news was released by cable, many Americans did not turn to other sources of news. They turned to entertainment. The viewers who remained were more political and more partisan. "As Walter Cronkite prospered in the old environment," says Starr, "Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann thrive in the new one. As the diminished public for journalism becomes more partisan, journalism itself is likely to shift further in that direction."
Cable and the Internet now allow Americans, if they choose, to get their information entirely from sources that agree with them -- sources that reinforce and exaggerate their political predispositions.
And the whole system is based on a kind of intellectual theft. Internet aggregators (who link to news they don't produce) and bloggers would have little to collect or comment upon without the costly enterprise of newsgathering and investigative reporting. The old-media dinosaurs remain the basis for the entire media food chain. But newspapers are expected to provide their content free on the Internet. A recent poll found that 80 percent of Americans refuse to pay for Internet content. There is no economic model that will allow newspapers to keep producing content they don't charge for, while Internet sites repackage and sell content they don't pay to produce.
I dislike media bias as much as the next conservative. But I don't believe that journalistic objectivity is a fraud. I was a journalist for a time, at a once-great, now-diminished newsmagazine. I've seen good men and women work according to a set of professional standards I respect -- standards that serve the public. Professional journalism is not like the buggy-whip industry, outdated by economic progress, to be mourned but not missed. This profession has a social value that is currently not reflected in its market value.
What is to be done? A lot of good people are working on it. But if you currently have newsprint on your hands, thank you.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The health care reform debate has brought out the most bizarre behavior with almost juvenile hysterical rants and, unfortunately, unbelievable distortions. Ruth Marcus has a nice column in the Washington Post on the recent House debate today (11/11/09). Worth noting for a reality check:
Health scare tactics
A GOP blizzard of untrue statements
By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
I'm hoping, for your sake, that you didn't spend your Saturday night as I did: watching the House debate health-care reform on C-SPAN.
Pathetic, I know. The outcome wasn't in doubt, and the arguments were as familiar as an old pair of slippers. Moral imperative! Government takeover! Long-overdue protections! Crippling mandates!
I'm not a huge fan of the House measure, but I was glad to see it straggle across the finish line, if only to keep the process going. And, by the end of the long debate, I was cheering for it even more because of the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents.
I don't mean the usual hyperbole about "a children-bankrupting, health-care-rationing, freedom-crushing, $1 trillion government takeover of our health-care system," as Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling put it. Or the tired canards about taxpayer-funded abortion or insurance subsidies for illegal immigrants.
Or the extraneous claims about alleged Democratic excesses, as in this from Georgia Republican Jack Kingston: "Let's remember the Pelosi plan for jobs: an $800 billion stimulus plan that caused unemployment to go from 8.5 percent to over 10 percent."
Caused? We can debate whether the stimulus was effective, although the best evidence is that it prevented things from being even worse. No rational person believes the stimulus "caused" unemployment to rise.
I mean the flood of sheer factual misstatements about the health-care bill.
The falsehood-peddling began at the top, with Minority Leader John Boehner:
"If you're a Medicare Advantage enrollee . . . the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage."
Not true. The CBO hasn't said anything of the sort. Boehner's office acknowledges that he misspoke: He meant to cite a study from the Medicare actuary estimating that projected enrollment would be down by 64 percent -- if the cuts took effect. Choosing not to enroll in Medicare Advantage is different from "losing" it.
But Boehner wasn't alone.
Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie: "The bill raises taxes for just about everyone."
Not true. The bill imposes a surtax on the top 0.3 percent of households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.
Georgia Republican Tom Price: "This bill, on Page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much."
Not true. The bill sets up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research "in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."
Are Republicans against figuring out what works? There's nothing in there about cost, and certainly nothing about denying "lifesaving patient care."
Price, again: "This bill, on Page 94, will make it illegal for any American to obtain health care not approved by Washington."
Not true. The vast majority of Americans get their insurance through their employers. The bill envisions setting minimum federal standards for such insurance, in part to determine who is eligible to buy coverage through the newly created insurance exchanges. This is hardly tantamount to making it "illegal" to obtain "health care" without Washington's approval.
Michigan Republican Dave Camp: "Americans could face five years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance."
Not true. The bill requires people to obtain insurance or, with some hardship exceptions, pay a fine. No one is being jailed for being uninsured. People who intentionally evade paying the fine could, in theory, be prosecuted -- just like others who cheat on their taxes.
California Republican Buck McKeon: "I offered two amendments to try to improve this bill -- one to require members of Congress to enroll in the public option like we're going to require all of you to do."
Not true. No one is required to enroll in the public option. In fact, most people won't even be eligible to enroll in the public option or other plans available through the exchanges.
Florida Republican Ginny Brown-Waite: "The president's own economic advisers have said that this bill will kill 5.5 million jobs."
Not true. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has estimated that the bill would increase economic growth and add jobs. Republicans misuse Romer's previous economic research on the impact of tax increases to produce the phony 5.5 million number.
You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
I've become increasingly convinced that there are some disturbing trends that are fatal to civic dialogue in this country - both of which have been caused by the internet. Traditional journalism, with its processes and rules that have fact checking and verification is on its knees, not yet figuring out how to compete in the digital world. And in that space reputable reporting and credibility are being shouted down by the internet blogs; with demagogues, political bomb throwers with distortions or outright lies that whip the uninformed (ignorant?) masses into hysterical frenzies and complicate the public discussion.
We now have people steadfastly believing that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that new Medicare proposals are intended to encourage euthanasia, and a friend of mine subscribes to the goofy theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy of the US government(!)
In the past, the uneducated didn't have an alternative to newspapers - other than tv, which was fairly simplistic, but benign. Now, without any framework or context in which to place information (because they haven't been educated-don't read books or credible journalism) they have an information vacuum that's easily filled with distorted or false information.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
September 4, 2008
Watching the Republican convention last night, with it’s sea of white faces, men all dressed up in suits and ties, older (it seemed) woman with swish clothes, jewelry and puffy hair – and everyone in those cowboy hats; I couldn’t help from thinking that it’s increasingly becoming an anachronism. It’s a party of people completely out of touch with the changing demographics of the country – and more importantly, the world. It continues to be reactionary; with rhetoric continuing to rely on fear-mongering, nationalistic machismo and emphasis on homogeneity.
In just over 30 years, whites will be a minority in this country and the number of Spanish-speaking citizens will make up more than a quarter of the population. For those people embodied by Republicans who feel insulted by Spanish language signs and phone cues and advocate English as the official language; they better be careful what they wish for; the tables could someday be turned and Spanish might be the officially designated tongue. The great Republican re-alignment that was supposed to have taken place broke down with the fear-based immigration reform. Hispanics are now less likely to vote with the GOP and the demographics will only put them further behind.
Unfortunately, the fear and suspicion are completely misplaced, unnecessary and counterproductive. In fact the great strength of the U.S. has been it’s pliability; it’s capacity to absorb and adapt to new people and new influences – not resist them.
The Republicans still see the world in Cold-War terms, celebrating military bravery and national swagger; believing that that U.S. has a monopoly on morality, freedom (and in it’s most dark, recent forms, believes we have the right force our brand down the throats of others). And there is a continuing delusion that we enjoy a quality of life unmatched by other nations.
The truth is, the world is changing dramatically. Global competition is now economic – not military. Globalization is boosting the economic lives of people all over the world and their equality with us will transform our relationships.
Posted by George Dahlman at 6:58 PM No comments:
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Washington Post
By David Rothkopf
Sunday, October 5, 2008
"Two September shocks will define the presidency of George W. Bush. Stunningly enough, it already seems clear that the second -- the financial crisis that has only begun to unfold -- may well have far greater and more lasting ramifications than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001"........ Full Story
The implications of this observation are tremendous; with nothing short of a complete restructuring of the world order and, I'm afraid, some serious 'come to Jesus' reckoning in the U.S. that could likely generate massive social upheavals. Canada is looking better every day!
Monday, September 15, 2008
By Fareed Zikaria in Newsweek - an excellent expression of the fundamental difference in world-view between Obama and McCain. It also illustrates the communication problem: Obama's is more nuanced and complicated (and accurate), but McCain's is more simplistic and panders to the fear and paranoia instinct.
Defending The Insiders - a great editorial by Norm Ornstein on the folly of running against Washington in the hope of accomplishing anything once they get here (are you listening Sarah Palin?)
______________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A recent intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president should actually inform Americans who that president should be. The article referencing the forecast and its conclusions is at - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903302.html
...but it envisions a "steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change and destabalized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy." It also predicts that the one key area of continued U.S. superiority - military power - will "be the least significant" asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future because "nobody is going to attack us with massive conventional force."
This is a reality check to all those Americans who continue to believe that American swagger and military bravado are possible -- or even useful. Furthermore, it should inform voters in the upcoming election that the qualities of the next president should rely less on his role as commander-in-chief and more on his diplomatic skills in a world where the U.S. must share a leadership role with other nations with whom we have mutual economic dependencies. Americans continue to place too much stock in the military role - based on irresponsible fear mongering - when the real threats and challenges are economic.
Monday, September 8, 2008
An excellent editorial from the Washington Post on September 7 -- addressing the topic that no one dares talk about -- the appauling ignorance of the American public.
5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters
By Rick ShenkmanSunday, September 7, 2008; Page B05
One thing both Democrats and Republicans agreed about in their vastly different conventions: The American voter will not only decide but decide wisely. But does the electorate really know what it's talking about? Plenty of things are hurting American democracy -- gridlock, negative campaigning, special interests -- but one factor lies at the root of all the others, and nobody dares to discuss it. American voters, who are hiring the people who'll run a superpower democracy, are grossly ignorant. Here are a few particularly bogus claims about their supposed savvy.
Some Highlights:
1) Our voters are pretty smart:
......According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them.....six in ten young people would not find Iraq on the map.....fewer than halp of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in.....and worse, just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.
2) Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's:
Liberals wish. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowlege levels of viewers (of the two shows) is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.
3) If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions:
Unfortunately, no. ......just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after smonths of unsubtle hinting from the Bush administration, some 60 percent of Americans came to believe that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attacks......and even after the 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it, some 50 percent of Americans still insisted that he did.
4) Voters today are smarter than they used to be:
Actually,....in some categories, they score lower. In the 1950's, only 10 percent of voters were incapable of citing any ways in which the two major parties differed.....by the 1970s, that number had jumped to nearly 30 percent. What's deplorable and incomprehensible: education levels are far higher today......
5) Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news:
Again, no. 60 percent followed the news of 9/11 (40 percent weren't??) Only 32 percent said they followed the anthrax attacks .... How many young people read newspapers....just 20%. And the Internet? Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
How often I hear from people their frustration with legislators and
the political system because it doesn't reflect the values or
efficiencies THEY want. "If only they would do the RIGHT thing". As
though some benevolent dictator could make it all work perfectly
(which I sometimes think they're actually looking for). What they fail
to appreciate is that there is someone else across town or across the
state who has a diametrically opposing view. And they have just as
much right to have that view represented. So who is right and how is
it resolved? That is the nature of our messy, slow, inefficient
system - in which compromise and accommodation are (or should) be
highly valued. The most effective lawmakers are those that really want
to get a result and not stand on principle. More recently, that's been
a problem ....... but that's another entry
Comments