Saturday, December 05, 2009
The Stimulus Is Working
It's great to see nonpartisan proof that the stimulus is working; any time I find anything like this, I'll post it.
The recession is still quite serious, and is not over (and a higher unemployment rate is a more important indicator of the recession's seriousness than technical economic definitions of a recession), but things could be a lot worse, especially if Obama and the Democrats were not in charge.
The recession is still quite serious, and is not over (and a higher unemployment rate is a more important indicator of the recession's seriousness than technical economic definitions of a recession), but things could be a lot worse, especially if Obama and the Democrats were not in charge.
Labels: 2006 Election, 2008 election, Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, economics, liberals, recession
Post Watch, Part 27
This was written in response to one of Post book critic Maureen Corrigan's reviews. It's amazing how much this kind of thing pervades the Post, even extending deep into the Style section. On a larger level, it's interesting to read Corrigan's piece and realize how much she's letting negative emails influence what she writes about a particular topic. Even though that topic is a fairly trivial one, this is disconcerting; what would Edward R. Murrow think of journalists who are afraid of mean emails? Would people who are afraid of mean emails be able to stand up to someone like Joe McCarthy?
To the editor:
In the midst of understandable complaining about having to review a Nora Roberts novel, Maureen Corrigan takes a totally unnecessary swipe at John Kerry, of all people, that’s not nearly as understandable. She says that if she gives the book a good review, she’d be a fake populist, and uses the example of Kerry ordering a higher class of cheese on his cheese steak as an example of said fake populism. The “mistake” that Kerry made, if it can be called that, was to order Swiss cheese, which is hardly the food of the snooty elite. Indeed, the public cared much less about Kerry’s “mistake” than the media did; they whipped up a frenzy over it, a frenzy I thought was over, until I read Corrigan’s article. Meanwhile, of course, George W. Bush bought a ranch and spent his spare time clearing brush on it in order to seem more like an ordinary American, a more significant act of fake populism from my point of view.
America is long past the catastrophes caused by Kerry’s ordering the “wrong” kind of cheese on his steak, but we’re still dealing with the effects of George W. Bush’s transparent fakeness, and his subsequent winning of the 2004 election. Corrigan could have taken a moment to consider this when looking around for an example of faux populism.
Thank you for reading my letter.
To the editor:
In the midst of understandable complaining about having to review a Nora Roberts novel, Maureen Corrigan takes a totally unnecessary swipe at John Kerry, of all people, that’s not nearly as understandable. She says that if she gives the book a good review, she’d be a fake populist, and uses the example of Kerry ordering a higher class of cheese on his cheese steak as an example of said fake populism. The “mistake” that Kerry made, if it can be called that, was to order Swiss cheese, which is hardly the food of the snooty elite. Indeed, the public cared much less about Kerry’s “mistake” than the media did; they whipped up a frenzy over it, a frenzy I thought was over, until I read Corrigan’s article. Meanwhile, of course, George W. Bush bought a ranch and spent his spare time clearing brush on it in order to seem more like an ordinary American, a more significant act of fake populism from my point of view.
America is long past the catastrophes caused by Kerry’s ordering the “wrong” kind of cheese on his steak, but we’re still dealing with the effects of George W. Bush’s transparent fakeness, and his subsequent winning of the 2004 election. Corrigan could have taken a moment to consider this when looking around for an example of faux populism.
Thank you for reading my letter.
Labels: 2004 Election, Books, John Kerry, media, Washington Post
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
More Like a Business?
Back in the 1990's, it seemed like every other politician and pundit and consultant was talking about government needing to be "run like a business." The thinking was that unlike the inefficient, worthless government, private businesses were always about efficiency and performance, since they all focused like a laser on "the bottom line" and maximizing profit. The idea was a key part of the Gingrich revolt, and many moderates and even liberals accepted it to some degree, including the Clinton Administration.
Now, a decade later, we’ve seen private companies lose or waste astronomical billions of money, cook books to inflate their own stock prices, help to cause a recession, and take hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout cash from the federal government (which turns out not to have been so worthless after all) to prevent further economic collapse.
I’ve noticed that it’s been a while since I heard anyone say the government should be run more like a business.
Here’s a really radical thought: maybe there are things that government could learn from business, and things that business could learn from government as well.
Now, a decade later, we’ve seen private companies lose or waste astronomical billions of money, cook books to inflate their own stock prices, help to cause a recession, and take hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout cash from the federal government (which turns out not to have been so worthless after all) to prevent further economic collapse.
I’ve noticed that it’s been a while since I heard anyone say the government should be run more like a business.
Here’s a really radical thought: maybe there are things that government could learn from business, and things that business could learn from government as well.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, conservatives, government
Post Watch, Part 26
I have several old letters to the editor that I haven't posted here; this is the first of them. It was written in reaction to the Post's series on child obesity that appeared this past summer; I'm sorry I don't have a link to the exact piece.
-----
To the editor:
Every article the Post publishes about childhood obesity, including the recent one about weight-loss surgery for teens, mentions that the child in question is taunted or treated rudely by some peer or teacher. This is invariably cited as a reason for the child in question to lose weight. In other contexts, this would be called what it is--blaming the victim.
We all want children to be healthy, but bullying and taunting aren't effective ways to accomplish that, nor are they ever the fault of the bullied, as the Post consistently implies. This is no less true when the bullied are overweight. In any event, complying with the wishes of a bully usually results in the bully finding some other excuse to continue their behavior. They are the people who really need to change.
Thank you for reading my letter.
-----
To the editor:
Every article the Post publishes about childhood obesity, including the recent one about weight-loss surgery for teens, mentions that the child in question is taunted or treated rudely by some peer or teacher. This is invariably cited as a reason for the child in question to lose weight. In other contexts, this would be called what it is--blaming the victim.
We all want children to be healthy, but bullying and taunting aren't effective ways to accomplish that, nor are they ever the fault of the bullied, as the Post consistently implies. This is no less true when the bullied are overweight. In any event, complying with the wishes of a bully usually results in the bully finding some other excuse to continue their behavior. They are the people who really need to change.
Thank you for reading my letter.
Labels: health care, mental health issues, Washington Post
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Meteor Blades Says It All
I haven't made up my mind what I think about Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan, but I am sure that Daily Kos regular Meteor Blades has said everything that needs to be said about Dick Cheney's outrageous second-guessing of the man who is trying to clean up the mess he and his cohorts made.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, terrorism, war
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dollar Coins
The government recently started a promotional campaign for the new dollar coins, a campaign that includes ads on the D.C. Metro subway/bus system and this web site. Personally, I like the idea; dollar coins are a lot more durable than bills, and therefore cheaper in the long run (the main reason they're being promoted). The new coins are attractive, and unlike the old Susan B. Anthony dollars, they are easily distinguished from quarters by their color (they are made of gold or a metal with a similar luster) and their size. I've noticed that kids like them too, because of the aforementioned gold color and their high value relative to other coins.
The only problem is that the public's ability to respond to this campaign is limited. Cashiers never seem to give out dollar coins; I've even met cashiers that don't recognize them. Metro farecard machines give them as change, which is the only way I ever seem to get any. Perhaps the campaign should encourage people to ask for them at banks.
Incidentally, the buses in New York City now require dollar coins. That's all fine and good, but if people will be required to use them, why not make them easier to get, perhaps by putting machines in subway stops?
The only problem is that the public's ability to respond to this campaign is limited. Cashiers never seem to give out dollar coins; I've even met cashiers that don't recognize them. Metro farecard machines give them as change, which is the only way I ever seem to get any. Perhaps the campaign should encourage people to ask for them at banks.
Incidentally, the buses in New York City now require dollar coins. That's all fine and good, but if people will be required to use them, why not make them easier to get, perhaps by putting machines in subway stops?
Labels: economics, environment, government
Saturday, November 14, 2009
2009 Wasn't That Bad
There’s no use in denying it; the 2009 off-year election results were disappointing. The gubernatorial results in Virginia and New Jersey aren’t what we hoped they would be. However, Democrats and progressives need not despair, in spite of the media’s insistence that we do so. There are plenty of results to be happy about as well.
1. Two House seats for reform. The result in New York’s 23rd district is no small thing; it exposed serious fault lines within the Republican party, and is a direct rebuke to the far-right, so-called "tea party" wing of that party, which campaigned for failed Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. In the end, it’s no small thing that a Democrat won a seat that had belonged to Republicans for over a century. Another House race happened that same day, one almost totally ignored by the media, one in which California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi won easily. Granted, it was a Democratic-leaning district, and few expected Garamendi to lose. That said, it’s still good to see Democrats holding on easily to our districts while capturing traditionally Republican ones. It’s also true that the vote in New York was close, but so was the vote in New Jersey, a result which has been hyped ceaselessly as a rebuke to Democrats.
These election results paid off almost immediately, since the Democratic-controlled House voted for health reform by a margin of only three votes, two of which were arguably provided to us on election night (the Democrat that Garamendi replaced was relatively centrist, and could very well have voted against the legislation).
2. A rebuke to the "tea baggers." Polls and election results to the contrary, conservatives insist that the American people are in full revolt against taxes and government (instead of high CEO pay at bailed-out companies, overpriced health care, and so on). The 2009 elections utterly repudiated that notion in many different areas of the country. Two so-called "taxpayer bill of rights" bills, which would have badly weakened the respective state governments at the worst possible time (the middle of a recession), failed badly in Washington State and Maine. Furthermore, the New York 23rd election proved that an anti-government platform isn’t necessarily enough for Republicans to win even in historically Republican districts. Even in relatively-conservative Texas, an initiative allowing residential property taxes passed handily.
3. Not all bad news on the gay-rights front. Yes, the Maine anti-gay-marriage results are a bitter pill to swallow, especially since Maine has been a generally-progressive state on this and many other issues. That said, it is worth noting that a pro-domestic partnership law passed in Washington State.
A few other notes on results that have had relatively little media attention:
–Being generally opposed to state-sanctioned gambling, I am disappointed to see that a gambling initiative passed in Ohio, although I note that the vote was quite close.
–While the gubernatorial election got the most attention, it’s worth noting that the Democrats continue to hold both state houses in New Jersey, and that a pro-environment initiative passed in the same election in that state.
–Shortly after getting the election rules changed so he could run for a third term, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg won, but only narrowly against a Democrat who was badly underfunded (anyone is unfunded compared to Bloomberg) and got little press attention. While Bloomberg has been progressive on some issues, notably gun control, the mayor’s office in New York City is an office that Democrats really ought to be able to win back. I think this should be a priority in 2013.
All that said, the media’s worst blind spot in regard to these elections was not any of these things. The thing that really struck me about coverage of these elections was that as eager as the media and conservatives were to turn them into a Referendum On Obama, the greatest significance these results have is in the actual places in which they happened. It does indeed matter who is governor of Virginia, or mayor of New York City; the places where these things matter most are Virginia and New York City, and they don’t have to matter greatly elsewhere to be important. It’s ironic that conservatives, who claim to prefer local politics to federal and national politics, are so eager now to nationalize the results of local elections.
1. Two House seats for reform. The result in New York’s 23rd district is no small thing; it exposed serious fault lines within the Republican party, and is a direct rebuke to the far-right, so-called "tea party" wing of that party, which campaigned for failed Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. In the end, it’s no small thing that a Democrat won a seat that had belonged to Republicans for over a century. Another House race happened that same day, one almost totally ignored by the media, one in which California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi won easily. Granted, it was a Democratic-leaning district, and few expected Garamendi to lose. That said, it’s still good to see Democrats holding on easily to our districts while capturing traditionally Republican ones. It’s also true that the vote in New York was close, but so was the vote in New Jersey, a result which has been hyped ceaselessly as a rebuke to Democrats.
These election results paid off almost immediately, since the Democratic-controlled House voted for health reform by a margin of only three votes, two of which were arguably provided to us on election night (the Democrat that Garamendi replaced was relatively centrist, and could very well have voted against the legislation).
2. A rebuke to the "tea baggers." Polls and election results to the contrary, conservatives insist that the American people are in full revolt against taxes and government (instead of high CEO pay at bailed-out companies, overpriced health care, and so on). The 2009 elections utterly repudiated that notion in many different areas of the country. Two so-called "taxpayer bill of rights" bills, which would have badly weakened the respective state governments at the worst possible time (the middle of a recession), failed badly in Washington State and Maine. Furthermore, the New York 23rd election proved that an anti-government platform isn’t necessarily enough for Republicans to win even in historically Republican districts. Even in relatively-conservative Texas, an initiative allowing residential property taxes passed handily.
3. Not all bad news on the gay-rights front. Yes, the Maine anti-gay-marriage results are a bitter pill to swallow, especially since Maine has been a generally-progressive state on this and many other issues. That said, it is worth noting that a pro-domestic partnership law passed in Washington State.
A few other notes on results that have had relatively little media attention:
–Being generally opposed to state-sanctioned gambling, I am disappointed to see that a gambling initiative passed in Ohio, although I note that the vote was quite close.
–While the gubernatorial election got the most attention, it’s worth noting that the Democrats continue to hold both state houses in New Jersey, and that a pro-environment initiative passed in the same election in that state.
–Shortly after getting the election rules changed so he could run for a third term, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg won, but only narrowly against a Democrat who was badly underfunded (anyone is unfunded compared to Bloomberg) and got little press attention. While Bloomberg has been progressive on some issues, notably gun control, the mayor’s office in New York City is an office that Democrats really ought to be able to win back. I think this should be a priority in 2013.
All that said, the media’s worst blind spot in regard to these elections was not any of these things. The thing that really struck me about coverage of these elections was that as eager as the media and conservatives were to turn them into a Referendum On Obama, the greatest significance these results have is in the actual places in which they happened. It does indeed matter who is governor of Virginia, or mayor of New York City; the places where these things matter most are Virginia and New York City, and they don’t have to matter greatly elsewhere to be important. It’s ironic that conservatives, who claim to prefer local politics to federal and national politics, are so eager now to nationalize the results of local elections.
Labels: 2009 election, Barack Obama, conservatives, economics, Gun control, Taxes
Crying Elitism?
Back in the 1980's and 1990's, conservatives used to complain that black activists and liberals were too quick to claim a racial basis for every conflict and criticism--or, to use the cruder formulation that some of them used, too quick to "cry racism."
But of course, it's different when they make every criticism of Sarah Palin (or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity) into "elitism."
As a side note, some of the comments below the article are truly knuckleheaded, although I guess that's not too surprising, considering how knuckleheaded the article is.
But of course, it's different when they make every criticism of Sarah Palin (or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity) into "elitism."
As a side note, some of the comments below the article are truly knuckleheaded, although I guess that's not too surprising, considering how knuckleheaded the article is.
Labels: conservatives, race, Sarah Palin
Sunday, November 08, 2009
House of Representatives Passes Obama Health Reform
Yes, there is still much work to be done (the Senate has to vote as well, and then the two versions have to be reconciled, which will be no easy task), but for now, let's just be happy something substantive passed the House.
I listened to the House debate on C-SPAN, and one thing that struck me was that even after all the back-and-forth and compromising and watering-down to make the bill centrist and acceptable to Republicans and conservative Dems, one Republican after another still got up and denounced this as a "government takeover of health care." In the end, all but one (very admirable) Republican voted against it.
I listened to the House debate on C-SPAN, and one thing that struck me was that even after all the back-and-forth and compromising and watering-down to make the bill centrist and acceptable to Republicans and conservative Dems, one Republican after another still got up and denounced this as a "government takeover of health care." In the end, all but one (very admirable) Republican voted against it.
Labels: Barack Obama, Congress, conservatives, health care, liberals
Saturday, October 31, 2009
This Is a "Renaissance?"
Sometimes, it's easy to look at the progress that this country has made on race (progress that I believe is genuine) and think that we've come a long, long way.
Then, I read god-awful drivel like this, and I wonder if we've taken more than a single step.
If what this site describes is a "renaissance," I'd hate to see the dark age.
Then, I read god-awful drivel like this, and I wonder if we've taken more than a single step.
If what this site describes is a "renaissance," I'd hate to see the dark age.
Labels: Barack Obama, race
