ok, here are some books that we can consider for the second half of the class:
Zakaria: Post American World
http://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/039306235X
Dryzek: Democracy in Capitalist Times
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Capitalist-Times-Ideals-Struggles/dp/0195106008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265005531&sr=1-1
Also, something that I am really interested in is humanitarian intervention (partly due to my background). When is it justified and what are the implications for wider security considerations? Does it set a precedent? Please see below an Amazon search on this issue.
Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens on one side, and Noam Chomsky on the other make for a lively debate on the matter. The first two support intervention, while the latter likes to dissect American intentions and so forth. DT, maybe you can suggest a book on this topic.
http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1265005570/ref=sr_pg_2?ie=UTF8&rs=1000&keywords=humanitarian%20intervention&rh=n%3A!1000%2Ci%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Ahumanitarian%20intervention&page=2
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Howard Zinn, cont'd.
Bob Herbert's column ends with a line that I regard as very true. "That Professor Zinn [based on his work as an activist and a historian] was considered a radical says more about the society he lived in than about him."
I could not agree more. This was a column I felt compelled to comment on because NPR had invited David Horowitz to say something in remembrance of Zinn upon his death. It basically said that Zinn had a chip on his shoulder about the American story and wrote an ideological tract that appealed only to the fringe left in our society. I was not the only one irritated by NPR's editorial judgement. Friday, "All Things Considered" was forced to read many of the views of people like me that saw this as idiotic and incompetent journalism, not to mention grossly unfair.
Maybe I've misread Benson's account of Herbert's column because Benson does point out how often our media are content to skim the superficial surface of our public life, not digging deeper beneath the lingo that covertly stigmatizes certain groups and certain interests without pausing to suggest a critical parsing of the words. For example, the Republican use of the phrase "tax relief for hardworking Americans." This Frank Luntz special is code for demonizing efforts to get the rich to pay their fair share of the tax burden (see my post related to Gail Collins's column on Saturday). The figures from my comments come from the AFL-CIO and Nancy Peolosi's office--a 5.6% surtax on incomes above 1 million generates $400 billion in revenue, enough to create four million jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate to 6% from its current 10%. Even though the GDP grew at a 5.6 rate in the last quarter of 2009, it was mostly due to replacing inventories so no new jobs were created. In order to get unemployment back to where it was before the Mega-recession, we'd need four consecutive years of this growth rate. In short, what has been done to fix the economy and fiscal mess is wholly inadequate. Now, why won't Speaker Pelosi or Pres Obama actually go forward with this proposal to ask to rich to pay their fair share after they've basically had a free ride for three decades? Why won't political journalists dig deeper than the Obama visit to the GOP's "lion's den" in Baltimore as if that televised exchange somehow was the national equivalent in politics of the Super Bowl? It was a pure spectacle, and you can expect each party is culling through the tape to find sound bytes and images for its 2010 Midterm ads already. But what if this is just the media's version of politics?
This is what the Capstone needs to be asking. What if The State of the Union, the showdown in Baltimore, the dust-up on Howard Zinn's death -- what if all of it is a diversionary spectacle designed to sell a journalistic product but also to keep the masses from asking the big questions? The Radicals we read about in Week One would say the same thing that Herbert did about Zinn's marginalization as a "radical." Such says more about our society than about those so stigmatized. What might lie beneath the surface of such gossipy dust-ups that warrants closer, deeper scrutiny before we pull ourselves out of the hole we're in? We'll take a stab at this in tomorrow night's class.
I could not agree more. This was a column I felt compelled to comment on because NPR had invited David Horowitz to say something in remembrance of Zinn upon his death. It basically said that Zinn had a chip on his shoulder about the American story and wrote an ideological tract that appealed only to the fringe left in our society. I was not the only one irritated by NPR's editorial judgement. Friday, "All Things Considered" was forced to read many of the views of people like me that saw this as idiotic and incompetent journalism, not to mention grossly unfair.
Maybe I've misread Benson's account of Herbert's column because Benson does point out how often our media are content to skim the superficial surface of our public life, not digging deeper beneath the lingo that covertly stigmatizes certain groups and certain interests without pausing to suggest a critical parsing of the words. For example, the Republican use of the phrase "tax relief for hardworking Americans." This Frank Luntz special is code for demonizing efforts to get the rich to pay their fair share of the tax burden (see my post related to Gail Collins's column on Saturday). The figures from my comments come from the AFL-CIO and Nancy Peolosi's office--a 5.6% surtax on incomes above 1 million generates $400 billion in revenue, enough to create four million jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate to 6% from its current 10%. Even though the GDP grew at a 5.6 rate in the last quarter of 2009, it was mostly due to replacing inventories so no new jobs were created. In order to get unemployment back to where it was before the Mega-recession, we'd need four consecutive years of this growth rate. In short, what has been done to fix the economy and fiscal mess is wholly inadequate. Now, why won't Speaker Pelosi or Pres Obama actually go forward with this proposal to ask to rich to pay their fair share after they've basically had a free ride for three decades? Why won't political journalists dig deeper than the Obama visit to the GOP's "lion's den" in Baltimore as if that televised exchange somehow was the national equivalent in politics of the Super Bowl? It was a pure spectacle, and you can expect each party is culling through the tape to find sound bytes and images for its 2010 Midterm ads already. But what if this is just the media's version of politics?
This is what the Capstone needs to be asking. What if The State of the Union, the showdown in Baltimore, the dust-up on Howard Zinn's death -- what if all of it is a diversionary spectacle designed to sell a journalistic product but also to keep the masses from asking the big questions? The Radicals we read about in Week One would say the same thing that Herbert did about Zinn's marginalization as a "radical." Such says more about our society than about those so stigmatized. What might lie beneath the surface of such gossipy dust-ups that warrants closer, deeper scrutiny before we pull ourselves out of the hole we're in? We'll take a stab at this in tomorrow night's class.
Comment of Frank Rich column, "The Comatose Republic"
In his Sunday essay in the NY Times, Frank Rich commends Obama's put-down of the Court's ruling on Citizens United (that got Alito to mouth "not true." And then speculates how Obama could turn on Congress as a case of triangulation on steroids (my phrase) IF he had positions on issues that the people who like him would be able to identify with so that the State of the Union would improve. Here's my take:
***********************************************
As your yourself note, Frank, the use of the bully pulpit to get Congress off the dime might yet rescue the comatose Republic PROVIDED that the President had strong positions on the issues that threaten our future. That he had the courage to speak out against the Court's (actually, its "strict constructionist" five's) most recent and most egregious case of judicial activism hardly makes him a populist hero or even a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.
Reagan stigmatized and demonized without hesitation, using the Bully Pulpit with great effect in getting those who would defend government as anything other than the employer of our troops as embarrassed and voiceless in the face of an argument that was effective only because it was not challenged. Obama had an opportunity to correct this classiclly conditioned association of "government" with "puzzle palace on the Potomac" (or the widely disdained "welfare queens" anecdotally seized upon to delegitmize welfare or social spending), when the "public option" facet of healthcare reform was allowed to put the House and Senate Finance bills at odds.
The President could have used it as a teachable moment, as a perfect platform for pulling down the lingering yet emasculating view of politics and government that remains Reagan's most pernicious legacy. That he chose not to -- or that in not choosing to do so, he didn't see the political meaning implicit in that moment -- says quite a lot, the least of which is that this President may be a bright, well-spoken, and talented public figure, but as a politician, he is no LBJ.
***********************************************
As your yourself note, Frank, the use of the bully pulpit to get Congress off the dime might yet rescue the comatose Republic PROVIDED that the President had strong positions on the issues that threaten our future. That he had the courage to speak out against the Court's (actually, its "strict constructionist" five's) most recent and most egregious case of judicial activism hardly makes him a populist hero or even a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.
Reagan stigmatized and demonized without hesitation, using the Bully Pulpit with great effect in getting those who would defend government as anything other than the employer of our troops as embarrassed and voiceless in the face of an argument that was effective only because it was not challenged. Obama had an opportunity to correct this classiclly conditioned association of "government" with "puzzle palace on the Potomac" (or the widely disdained "welfare queens" anecdotally seized upon to delegitmize welfare or social spending), when the "public option" facet of healthcare reform was allowed to put the House and Senate Finance bills at odds.
The President could have used it as a teachable moment, as a perfect platform for pulling down the lingering yet emasculating view of politics and government that remains Reagan's most pernicious legacy. That he chose not to -- or that in not choosing to do so, he didn't see the political meaning implicit in that moment -- says quite a lot, the least of which is that this President may be a bright, well-spoken, and talented public figure, but as a politician, he is no LBJ.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Is it the Media, Stupid?
Why should anyone mourn the death of a probably grumpy 87-year old who bears the Howard Zinn name-tag at these difficult times, unless he is your grandpa? If anything, such senior-citizen deaths have become commonplace that they have almost earned their acceptance into the American fabric of virtue – thanks to a careless healthcare program and an economy on its head! But, such a death would worry you if you’re Bob Herbert, sitting on a couch and gazing at the world just to locate what would space in on your NYT column.
For starters, like me, Zinn was an American historian who died this week and whose contribution to a progressive America, had faded with him into his sunset years, that only Herbert, writing in his Times’ column on Saturday January 30, could recall. Herbert eulogized Zinn, a man who spent his days writing and rallying progressive voices against discrimination of many forms, in a slap to the media for failing to tell the “true” American stories. He took a swipe at the kind of attention the media allocate to say, the “sex addiction” of Tiger Woods, or the fireside prattles around Hollywood at the behest of an American populace starving for meaningful journalism.
“Our tendency is to give these true American heroes short shrift, just as we gave Howard Zinn short shrift. In the nitwit era that we’re living through now, it’s fashionable, for example, to bad-mouth labor unions and feminists even as workers throughout the land are treated like so much trash and the culture is so riddled with sexism that most people don’t even notice it,” Herbert shrugged. But, who doesn’t know this? Or rather, who gives a heck over how the media makes its decisions? It’s the absurdity that confirms how vested interests have stolen the thunder from the motivation of yesteryears that gave birth to this vibrant society we see today. The scandal, that is the media’s honeymoon with vested interests, I will agree has hijacked the titanic of nationhood to a wild sea-route of uncertainty and private hounding.
But, so, with this broken mirror (the media), where else will society cast its eyes to take a pot shot at its looks? This question, will certainly lead to a floodgate of queries of whether the media has abdicated its vanguard role over society and what interests journalists now serve. From a broken Washinton to a crime-infested main-street the citizen has been left to himself; to the vulnerability of a scavenging bourgeois tossing at the incorporation of the media to its exclusive members’ club. Just look who owns the media, so you may know.
I guess we need more debate on this. It’s way more than Herbert’s sobs in his NYT column. The whole world is a voctim and it’s way worse in repressive regimes in the developing world or in the Maoist legacy, where the government holds the keys to everyone’s opinion. Adios!
-Benson
Comment of Gail Collins' NYT column 1/30/10
Greetings Obamadogs contribitors,
This is my pasted comment on Gail Collins piece in Saturday's New York Times. Called "An Inconvenient Truth," it is about the rise of selfishness and the decline of "social capital" in our politics and society. She concludes with a line to the effect that "It's irrelevant how we got here. We just need to get out." Here, then is my view, for what it's worth.
*******************************************
Figuring out how we got here is not entirely irrelevant to getting out. Republicans, in particular, have a short memory, sparing no audacity in acting as if the fiscal insanity of cutting taxes, passing a huge unpaid-for prescription drug add-on to Medicare and fighting two wars off budget weren't major contributors to our current predicament.
And it's important to remember that Ronald Reagan not only failed to shrink government and balance the budget as promised; instead, he allowed the national debt to triple under his Administration. The few who prospered at the expense of the many deserve to pay their fair share in repairing the damage of an economic policy that was little more than a stacked deck that Democrats didn't have the courage to call out for what is was: the very "class warfare" that would silence any move to restore fairness and shared responsibility to the tax code.
Letting the Bush tax cuts elapse is not enough; a modest 5.6% surtax on incomes over $1 million could generate $400 billion in revenue, which in turn could finance a real jobs bill able to put a decent dent in the unemployment rate, thereby cutting into the deficit by replenishing tax revenues depleted by the recession and unjustifiable tax cuts that grew the chasm between the economic haves and have-nots more than the macro-economy as a whole. Such a fiscal correction would be tagged as un-American, socialist, and an assault on economic freedom, to be sure; and yet it would fall considerably short of the progressivity in the federal tax system employed under Dwight Eisenhower. Then, as Kevin Phillips has noted, there were six brackets for the top 1% of incomes, with the highest marginal rate two and half times greater than is now the case. To deny the failure of supply-side economics to meet a fairly conventional standard that Republicans like to pay rhetorical lip-srvice to, as if only they can meet it -- spending within our means, or raising enough in means to balance with spending -- is to divert attention from a sensible and fairly traditional way of digging out of the hole we're in, by old-fashioned notions of hard work and fair play.
This is my pasted comment on Gail Collins piece in Saturday's New York Times. Called "An Inconvenient Truth," it is about the rise of selfishness and the decline of "social capital" in our politics and society. She concludes with a line to the effect that "It's irrelevant how we got here. We just need to get out." Here, then is my view, for what it's worth.
*******************************************
Figuring out how we got here is not entirely irrelevant to getting out. Republicans, in particular, have a short memory, sparing no audacity in acting as if the fiscal insanity of cutting taxes, passing a huge unpaid-for prescription drug add-on to Medicare and fighting two wars off budget weren't major contributors to our current predicament.
And it's important to remember that Ronald Reagan not only failed to shrink government and balance the budget as promised; instead, he allowed the national debt to triple under his Administration. The few who prospered at the expense of the many deserve to pay their fair share in repairing the damage of an economic policy that was little more than a stacked deck that Democrats didn't have the courage to call out for what is was: the very "class warfare" that would silence any move to restore fairness and shared responsibility to the tax code.
Letting the Bush tax cuts elapse is not enough; a modest 5.6% surtax on incomes over $1 million could generate $400 billion in revenue, which in turn could finance a real jobs bill able to put a decent dent in the unemployment rate, thereby cutting into the deficit by replenishing tax revenues depleted by the recession and unjustifiable tax cuts that grew the chasm between the economic haves and have-nots more than the macro-economy as a whole. Such a fiscal correction would be tagged as un-American, socialist, and an assault on economic freedom, to be sure; and yet it would fall considerably short of the progressivity in the federal tax system employed under Dwight Eisenhower. Then, as Kevin Phillips has noted, there were six brackets for the top 1% of incomes, with the highest marginal rate two and half times greater than is now the case. To deny the failure of supply-side economics to meet a fairly conventional standard that Republicans like to pay rhetorical lip-srvice to, as if only they can meet it -- spending within our means, or raising enough in means to balance with spending -- is to divert attention from a sensible and fairly traditional way of digging out of the hole we're in, by old-fashioned notions of hard work and fair play.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Real State of the Union
Op-Ed Columnist
March of the Peacocks
Recommend
Twitter
comments
(97)
E-Mail
Send To Phone
Print
Share
CloseLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By PAUL KRUGMAN
Friday's (1/28/01) Paul Krugman column contains the following assessment of the core problem with the state of the union, along with an indictment of the Obama administration for failing to address it. The whole column is worth a look, and a class consideration as to why the political system is unable to deal with it--linking the "why's" to our readings for Monday and from Ricci..
*******************************************
The nature of America’s troubles is easy to state. We’re in the aftermath of a severe financial crisis, which has led to mass job destruction. The only thing that’s keeping us from sliding into a second Great Depression is deficit spending. And right now we need more of that deficit spending because millions of American lives are being blighted by high unemployment, and the government should be doing everything it can to bring unemployment down.
In the long run, however, even the U.S. government has to pay its way. And the long-run budget outlook was dire even before the recent surge in the deficit, mainly because of inexorably rising health care costs. Looking ahead, we’re going to have to find a way to run smaller, not larger, deficits.
How can this apparent conflict between short-run needs and long-run responsibilities be resolved? Intellectually, it’s not hard at all. We should combine actions that create jobs now with other actions that will reduce deficits later. And economic officials in the Obama administration understand that logic: for the past year they have been very clear that their vision involves combining fiscal stimulus to help the economy now with health care reform to help the budget later.
The sad truth, however, is that our political system doesn’t seem capable of doing what’s necessary.
*********************************************
March of the Peacocks
Recommend
comments
(97)
Send To Phone
Share
CloseLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By PAUL KRUGMAN
Friday's (1/28/01) Paul Krugman column contains the following assessment of the core problem with the state of the union, along with an indictment of the Obama administration for failing to address it. The whole column is worth a look, and a class consideration as to why the political system is unable to deal with it--linking the "why's" to our readings for Monday and from Ricci..
*******************************************
The nature of America’s troubles is easy to state. We’re in the aftermath of a severe financial crisis, which has led to mass job destruction. The only thing that’s keeping us from sliding into a second Great Depression is deficit spending. And right now we need more of that deficit spending because millions of American lives are being blighted by high unemployment, and the government should be doing everything it can to bring unemployment down.
In the long run, however, even the U.S. government has to pay its way. And the long-run budget outlook was dire even before the recent surge in the deficit, mainly because of inexorably rising health care costs. Looking ahead, we’re going to have to find a way to run smaller, not larger, deficits.
How can this apparent conflict between short-run needs and long-run responsibilities be resolved? Intellectually, it’s not hard at all. We should combine actions that create jobs now with other actions that will reduce deficits later. And economic officials in the Obama administration understand that logic: for the past year they have been very clear that their vision involves combining fiscal stimulus to help the economy now with health care reform to help the budget later.
The sad truth, however, is that our political system doesn’t seem capable of doing what’s necessary.
*********************************************
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Altered States.....
Well, I have to give the President a B+ for his first State of the Union. It contained the stylistic Obama oratory, and it was a bit more feisty (in delivery and in substance) than previous addresses of this magnitude. It was also smartly organized and deceptively leaked with good effect: the "budget freeze" leaks had become the lead story and the source of cranky criticism from the likes of Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and Robert Kuttner. The framing of the speech with jobs first and health care and, finally, an overdue declaration of the end of the Bush tax cuts stuff folded in as part of an "Eisenhower Republican" approach to the budget -- green jobs, energy conservation and renewable energy development (including "clean coal" and nuclear power) that was far less disappointing than the diminished expectations courtesy of the "budget freeze" leaks. I'm even curious, since the "freeze" leaks came several days ago, whether there might have been substantive changes after the cool reception to the leaks. Also noteworthy was the recurring references to what the House has passed but the Senate has not, about as close as Obama can get to a public callout or expression of displeasure. Will it move health care or climate change legislation when the filibuster is now in play? Doubtful.
The President's "won't quit" theme extends yet again rhetorically to a bipartisan appeal. On this he seems to me to be missing the point. Politics demands that presidents play hardball now and then. Obama needs a new strategy that communicates resolve and shines a far brighter light -- and less subtle, nuanced one -- on the implications of the Republican party's complete abandonment of its historical reputation as a fiscally-responsible advocate of balanced budgets and proud public service.
That's my take and I'm sticking to it. What did the rest of you think?
The President's "won't quit" theme extends yet again rhetorically to a bipartisan appeal. On this he seems to me to be missing the point. Politics demands that presidents play hardball now and then. Obama needs a new strategy that communicates resolve and shines a far brighter light -- and less subtle, nuanced one -- on the implications of the Republican party's complete abandonment of its historical reputation as a fiscally-responsible advocate of balanced budgets and proud public service.
That's my take and I'm sticking to it. What did the rest of you think?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
More on Abi's SCOTUS Ruling
I was reading about the ruling that came down this week and had similar thoughts regarding its negative impact on the political process. I came across this piece on Politico, which suggested that fears of it are overblown:
www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878/.html
I'd be interested to hear what others think on this take, which suggests that at most, it will simply be a shift in cash from 527s, but nothing as drastic as has been suggested by many others. I agree that funding certain attack ads or other politically related activites could alienate shareholders and may deter coroporations from doing little beyond what they do now (which isn't the greatest to begin with). The article suggests that wealthy individuals will likely be the biggest benificiaries of the ruling, but that the impact will be marginalized by the preference of candidates and past experiences.
I'm not so sure I agree with the article's premise. It seems to suggest consequences could be rather little, but then goes on in the very end to say in targeted Congressional races the impact could be rather noticed. It also suggests that the one thing holding back a potential flood of money would be the candidate itself. I wonder if every candidate will feel the need to push back on these wealthy individuals or groups who can now give money in a much simpler way. To me, it seems that single issue groups will be able to push their agend much more effectively, perhaps harming both party structure and cohesion, and possibly electing candidates who are so indebted to one cause that they are ignorant on other important policies.
www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878/.html
I'd be interested to hear what others think on this take, which suggests that at most, it will simply be a shift in cash from 527s, but nothing as drastic as has been suggested by many others. I agree that funding certain attack ads or other politically related activites could alienate shareholders and may deter coroporations from doing little beyond what they do now (which isn't the greatest to begin with). The article suggests that wealthy individuals will likely be the biggest benificiaries of the ruling, but that the impact will be marginalized by the preference of candidates and past experiences.
I'm not so sure I agree with the article's premise. It seems to suggest consequences could be rather little, but then goes on in the very end to say in targeted Congressional races the impact could be rather noticed. It also suggests that the one thing holding back a potential flood of money would be the candidate itself. I wonder if every candidate will feel the need to push back on these wealthy individuals or groups who can now give money in a much simpler way. To me, it seems that single issue groups will be able to push their agend much more effectively, perhaps harming both party structure and cohesion, and possibly electing candidates who are so indebted to one cause that they are ignorant on other important policies.
non-voting and Ricci
Ricci (chapters 4 and 5) talks about the low voter turnout and about the general public apathy regarding elections. I have the following questions in my head as far as voting is concerned:
1. opportunity to speak vs what people say:
Is the result of elections less important than the fact that people can vote? Should we be more concerned in protecting the right to vote or somehow shape and worry about the result too? Or maybe both are equally important?
In my opinion, protecting the right to vote is more important than the actual results. You cannot have the latter without the former. True, people make stupid decisions sometimes and vote foolishly; yet, Ricci would argue that the people with "misguided" views are the most apathetic and less likely to take action.
2. Voter-turnout: If turnout is low, does this imply that people are satisfied with the current conditions/status quo and thus do not feel the pressure to change things? Or is low turnout a way of showing distrust in the system's efficacy and its ability to carry out change?
3. In page 109, Ricci quotes Francis Wilson: "ultimate particiaption is more important than constant participation". In other words it is okay if people do not vote each time, but only when they feel that their interests have not been met by the government. I wonder if this was the case with Obama, when people were really fed-up and turned out to vote in higher numbers. This was a sort of ultimate vote, even for those who did not necessarily cast a ballot in each previous election. DT maybe you can add to this, but I wonder if constant voting would be a remedy to prevent volatile election results.
1. opportunity to speak vs what people say:
Is the result of elections less important than the fact that people can vote? Should we be more concerned in protecting the right to vote or somehow shape and worry about the result too? Or maybe both are equally important?
In my opinion, protecting the right to vote is more important than the actual results. You cannot have the latter without the former. True, people make stupid decisions sometimes and vote foolishly; yet, Ricci would argue that the people with "misguided" views are the most apathetic and less likely to take action.
2. Voter-turnout: If turnout is low, does this imply that people are satisfied with the current conditions/status quo and thus do not feel the pressure to change things? Or is low turnout a way of showing distrust in the system's efficacy and its ability to carry out change?
3. In page 109, Ricci quotes Francis Wilson: "ultimate particiaption is more important than constant participation". In other words it is okay if people do not vote each time, but only when they feel that their interests have not been met by the government. I wonder if this was the case with Obama, when people were really fed-up and turned out to vote in higher numbers. This was a sort of ultimate vote, even for those who did not necessarily cast a ballot in each previous election. DT maybe you can add to this, but I wonder if constant voting would be a remedy to prevent volatile election results.
The Car-Maker's Dilemma
So it took me 30 minutes, but I finally figured out how to do this. (I'm not sure I could find my way back to the "new blog" screen on a bet though.)
As I was finishing up my reading in the Ricci text, I "flagged" a certain page because it reminded me a lot of an article I read in the New York Times a couple of days ago. After a bit of research, I found this particular article in the archives. It is a few days old and “old news” for most of you, but it reads as follows:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?scp=2&sq=lobbyist%20money&st=Search
It is discussing the recent Supreme Court ruling rejecting the corporate spending limit, which, according to the article (and to which I tend to agree), ". . . will also increase the power of organized interest groups at the expense of candidates and political parties" (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
One line of this article in particular struck me as related to an example presented in Ricci’s section of Chapter 6 called “The Call for Substantive Rationality”. This line discusses how lobbyists now have more of an ability to tell lawmakers, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want…’” (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
On page 185 the Ricci text discusses the dilemma between functional rationality and substantive rationality—the former being concerned with more short-term, narrow-minded ideas and the latter concerned with the long term. To present this difference, he offers Reich’s example of an automobile executive and his “car-maker’s dilemma.” When this automobile executive is in his role, he is seeking solely to maximize profits and doesn't concern himself with ideas such as producing fewer cars to channel the material to a better use of resources. He is incapable of making decisions that are responsible for the community as a whole. When he is outside of his role he is powerless because his role is the source of his power.
I am afraid that some of our elected officials and political parties will fall victim to much of the same dilemma. Many of these people/parties gain power from the role they hold, and this role is being defined more and more by interest groups, corporate dollars, and hidden agendas instead of their traditional “intended” purpose to provide a voice for the people, (etc.). Because of the extent to which their loyalties to these interest groups dictate their decisions (whether they admit it or not), this may make these people/groups incapable of taking a more functional approach—opting for the short term gain at the expense of the long-term loss. They will make decisions that benefit those who throw the dollars at them at the expense of what is best for the community because they won’t be able to think or act responsibly otherwise. This is quite concerning, yet it seems to me like the Supreme Court is inadvertently condoning these practices? This doesn’t seem healthy or sustainable.
It is just a thought so I may be misinterpreting Ricci, Kirkpatrick, or the Supreme Court’s decision, but I thought I would take the risk and share anyway.
As I was finishing up my reading in the Ricci text, I "flagged" a certain page because it reminded me a lot of an article I read in the New York Times a couple of days ago. After a bit of research, I found this particular article in the archives. It is a few days old and “old news” for most of you, but it reads as follows:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?scp=2&sq=lobbyist%20money&st=Search
It is discussing the recent Supreme Court ruling rejecting the corporate spending limit, which, according to the article (and to which I tend to agree), ". . . will also increase the power of organized interest groups at the expense of candidates and political parties" (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
One line of this article in particular struck me as related to an example presented in Ricci’s section of Chapter 6 called “The Call for Substantive Rationality”. This line discusses how lobbyists now have more of an ability to tell lawmakers, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want…’” (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
On page 185 the Ricci text discusses the dilemma between functional rationality and substantive rationality—the former being concerned with more short-term, narrow-minded ideas and the latter concerned with the long term. To present this difference, he offers Reich’s example of an automobile executive and his “car-maker’s dilemma.” When this automobile executive is in his role, he is seeking solely to maximize profits and doesn't concern himself with ideas such as producing fewer cars to channel the material to a better use of resources. He is incapable of making decisions that are responsible for the community as a whole. When he is outside of his role he is powerless because his role is the source of his power.
I am afraid that some of our elected officials and political parties will fall victim to much of the same dilemma. Many of these people/parties gain power from the role they hold, and this role is being defined more and more by interest groups, corporate dollars, and hidden agendas instead of their traditional “intended” purpose to provide a voice for the people, (etc.). Because of the extent to which their loyalties to these interest groups dictate their decisions (whether they admit it or not), this may make these people/groups incapable of taking a more functional approach—opting for the short term gain at the expense of the long-term loss. They will make decisions that benefit those who throw the dollars at them at the expense of what is best for the community because they won’t be able to think or act responsibly otherwise. This is quite concerning, yet it seems to me like the Supreme Court is inadvertently condoning these practices? This doesn’t seem healthy or sustainable.
It is just a thought so I may be misinterpreting Ricci, Kirkpatrick, or the Supreme Court’s decision, but I thought I would take the risk and share anyway.
Comments on Rich essay, "After the Mass. Massacre"
Dan ThomasCedar Falls, IowaJanuary 23rd, 201011:52 pm
Hi gang, This is my personal commentary, actually written last night in response to the Frank Rich essay in today's Times (it appears about 10:00 pm CST online). It's still in the qeue waiting publication and will be buried by the hundreds of others from people weighing in on the meaning of the Mass vote. Since we're all entitled to make of "objective" election results whatever narrative we wish, I'm choosing the one that follows. (I noticed that Chelsea has posted her review of Avatar in this blog, and because it has elicited considerable commentary from viewers on its political message, which Chelsea's take picks up on, I and a colleague are in the process of doing a Q study of viewer reactions to the movie. It may therefore be something that we as a class want to consider part of a class assignment: i.e., to watch and comment on it as it relates to politics if at all. Just a thought; be sure to read Chelsea's review and feel free to comment on it as well. Also note that in addition to Joe's story about KnightCallers and the Ricci effect, there is a comment from our colleague Sam Dunn on one of the earlier posts. In it, he has some not very kind things to say about the Democratic Party which he has worked tirelessly for in the recent electoral cycles. I have to concur with his assessment, for what it's worth. Finally, for what it's worth, my picks for later today are the New York Jets and the New Orleans Saints to defeat the Colts and Vikings respectively to set up the Super Bowl Matchup for two weeks hence. Here, then, is my two cents on the Massachusets special election:
Obama laid out for readers of Dreams from My Father, this presumed capacity to evoke different projections from different quarters as to his real identity. That may have served him well in life thus far, even in political life as a candidate whose promise of change was phrased in articulate oratory strikingly void of non-negotiable policy specifics. His biography -- as the son of a mother forced to take who food stamps, his decision to serve a low-pay, hard work stint as a community organizer between college and law school -- was enough to convince voters that his was more than a place-holding venture cynically exploiting the "change we need" slogan at a time when change was our only real option.
But now here we are, with a sinking feeling, fearing that we've been duped again, and that the Court's removal this week of all the cosmetics that cover the blemishes of a corporate oligarchy already controlling the purse strings and big votes of elected politicians plenty well enough to drop one more effort at long overdue health care
reform in its tracks.
All the handwringing and all the talk by pundits about resetting the Whie House's strategy is in order, just as the President's newly acquired demeanor as a combative populist is hardly unexpected in the wake of the Massachusetts result. But given the conditions of the ground since Senator Kennedy's death, that too could well have been expected. It would have likely been no different had Martha Coakley displayed due knowledge of, if not appreciation for, Curt Schilling, bit her tongue before dissing her opponent's judgment in shaking workers' hands in the cold without wearing an adequate overcoat -- as revealing as those stumbles were.
The MA voters were saying what, apparently, only those in the White House couldn't hear before the votes were counted: this president behaves as if his central if not sole mission is to manage -- carefully, deliberately, thoughtfully, while duly consulting all prominent advisors along the way -- the Corporate State in a serene, zen-like manner, showing no visible signs of disturbance or upset at a political process that has long since abandoned any pretense of seeking the fundamenal changes we so critically need and cannot afford to back away from yet again.
Hi gang, This is my personal commentary, actually written last night in response to the Frank Rich essay in today's Times (it appears about 10:00 pm CST online). It's still in the qeue waiting publication and will be buried by the hundreds of others from people weighing in on the meaning of the Mass vote. Since we're all entitled to make of "objective" election results whatever narrative we wish, I'm choosing the one that follows. (I noticed that Chelsea has posted her review of Avatar in this blog, and because it has elicited considerable commentary from viewers on its political message, which Chelsea's take picks up on, I and a colleague are in the process of doing a Q study of viewer reactions to the movie. It may therefore be something that we as a class want to consider part of a class assignment: i.e., to watch and comment on it as it relates to politics if at all. Just a thought; be sure to read Chelsea's review and feel free to comment on it as well. Also note that in addition to Joe's story about KnightCallers and the Ricci effect, there is a comment from our colleague Sam Dunn on one of the earlier posts. In it, he has some not very kind things to say about the Democratic Party which he has worked tirelessly for in the recent electoral cycles. I have to concur with his assessment, for what it's worth. Finally, for what it's worth, my picks for later today are the New York Jets and the New Orleans Saints to defeat the Colts and Vikings respectively to set up the Super Bowl Matchup for two weeks hence. Here, then, is my two cents on the Massachusets special election:
Obama laid out for readers of Dreams from My Father, this presumed capacity to evoke different projections from different quarters as to his real identity. That may have served him well in life thus far, even in political life as a candidate whose promise of change was phrased in articulate oratory strikingly void of non-negotiable policy specifics. His biography -- as the son of a mother forced to take who food stamps, his decision to serve a low-pay, hard work stint as a community organizer between college and law school -- was enough to convince voters that his was more than a place-holding venture cynically exploiting the "change we need" slogan at a time when change was our only real option.
But now here we are, with a sinking feeling, fearing that we've been duped again, and that the Court's removal this week of all the cosmetics that cover the blemishes of a corporate oligarchy already controlling the purse strings and big votes of elected politicians plenty well enough to drop one more effort at long overdue health care
reform in its tracks.
All the handwringing and all the talk by pundits about resetting the Whie House's strategy is in order, just as the President's newly acquired demeanor as a combative populist is hardly unexpected in the wake of the Massachusetts result. But given the conditions of the ground since Senator Kennedy's death, that too could well have been expected. It would have likely been no different had Martha Coakley displayed due knowledge of, if not appreciation for, Curt Schilling, bit her tongue before dissing her opponent's judgment in shaking workers' hands in the cold without wearing an adequate overcoat -- as revealing as those stumbles were.
The MA voters were saying what, apparently, only those in the White House couldn't hear before the votes were counted: this president behaves as if his central if not sole mission is to manage -- carefully, deliberately, thoughtfully, while duly consulting all prominent advisors along the way -- the Corporate State in a serene, zen-like manner, showing no visible signs of disturbance or upset at a political process that has long since abandoned any pretense of seeking the fundamenal changes we so critically need and cannot afford to back away from yet again.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Savages, savages, barely even human!
This evening I saw the film Avatar. Perhaps many of you have seen it already. It is about a group of people who have basically destroyed their planet and go to a new planet to seek a valuable mineral. However, on this other planet there are people who live above the most mineral-rich part of the planet and who are attacked in order to extract the mineral.
While films with similar ideas (Pocahontus, for example) have been made into big media releases, nothing compares to this. Not to mention the 3D is really amazing. But I hope that the message from the film gets into the minds of those who see it. I hope people can discuss it afterwards.
Many aspects of the film can lead viewers towards the idea that the conquering group could represent the United States in the world today. They even mentioned "we will fight terror with terror." Something we could say today in all honesty. And what kind of a philosophy is that? But I digress. In the film, there were military units, scientific units, and cultural units. Each maintaing their own duties, which some crossover between units. The ones who studied the culture ended up being ignored. Has this not been the case in history? The problems that have been most grave have mostly been due to misunderstandings of cultural differences and values. Greed and other evils have worked their way in too, obviously. But cultural misunderstandings are something that can be prevented.
After leaving the movie I stepped outside into a dark and foggy night. My car was alone in a nearly vacant lot. It was very eerie. Then I was reminded of the world in which we live in here on earth. The differences that exist between places. In Waterloo, Iowa I felt no fear going to my car with my companion. But as we approached the car, my companion from a "developing" world country expressed to me his fear in approaching the lone car in the dark lot. Saying that we could be robbed or the car could blow up. I laughed but realized that this could be a potentially dangerous situation.
It is hard not to take things for granted. Habits turn into a type of dependancy. In the "developed" world so many things are taken for granted. And somehow there are times when we think things are improving, progressing, moving forward, those are the times when we as a society have been the most childish. I take for example the idea of time. Faster has become better. Has it not? Fast food, fast solutions, etc. While in Argentina I learned the importance of proper nutrition and how it affects one's body. It is highly underrated in the United States. To make themselves more healthy and attractive, people eat better and sleep when they are tired. In the United States people take the quick solutions (that somehow may not always be so quick) of getting special medicines or buying certain products to improve their hair, acne, blemishes, under-eye circles, wrinkles, teeth, etc. Why is it that the symptoms are getting treated and not the source: malnutrition and lack of sleep? Now if "backward" had to be used to describe one of these societies, which would you choose?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Hope from the Unexpected
To make some extra money I became a Knightcaller, bothering alumni and friends of the college three nights a week for $7.75/hr. I'm terrible. I've worked a week, got payed about $125, while raising $100. While the thought of owing this college money is not a new concept, my first (and only) donation provided me with a new and hopeful perspective on things.
It was about 15 minutes until quitting time on Tuesday and I was shooting a cool 0 for 17 from the field, well short of my 25% participation goal, when I dialed up a recent political science alum. I thought this is my chance, and after reminiscing about Dr. Billet, I successfully got shot down after the first ask, but I countered with how groups such as the Wartburg Democrats get students involved and provide unique experiences for students such as playing a key role in getting Barack Obama on campus.
He/she stopped me right in my tracks and informed me he/she was a VP of a Republican fundraising organization, and I saw 0 for 18 staring me in the face. He/she then mentioned he/she was celebrating the big win in Massachusetts, and I casually mentioned how Dr. Thomas was dreading the results Monday in Capstone as I was marking another "no pledge" on my sheet.
Instantly, as if from a source from above, the caller chuckled, expressed his/her sympathy for me and our class, remembering The Tragedy of Political Science, promptly gave me some advice on calling then put $100 on his/her card to save me from another night of an empty pledge sheet.
I walked away from the experience realizing that even though we have our political differences, Americans from both sides of the political spectrum can still find ground to relate on, whether it's helping those in Haiti or the dread of a capstone text.
Unfortunately, these moments are few and far between, but the only way politics in the US is going to be taken seriously, and more importantly become an effective institution, is by recognizing our differences, instead of promoting them. Collectively we have to find common ground to better society or else run the risk of making another edition of The Tragedy of Political Science necessary to describe our current mistakes that will plague society for years to come.
A change in US politics may seem as likely as Brett Favre staying retired, but things were looking pretty bad Tuesday night in the basement of Founders when differences were put to the side, familiarities were established, and action was taken toward a common goal.
It was about 15 minutes until quitting time on Tuesday and I was shooting a cool 0 for 17 from the field, well short of my 25% participation goal, when I dialed up a recent political science alum. I thought this is my chance, and after reminiscing about Dr. Billet, I successfully got shot down after the first ask, but I countered with how groups such as the Wartburg Democrats get students involved and provide unique experiences for students such as playing a key role in getting Barack Obama on campus.
He/she stopped me right in my tracks and informed me he/she was a VP of a Republican fundraising organization, and I saw 0 for 18 staring me in the face. He/she then mentioned he/she was celebrating the big win in Massachusetts, and I casually mentioned how Dr. Thomas was dreading the results Monday in Capstone as I was marking another "no pledge" on my sheet.
Instantly, as if from a source from above, the caller chuckled, expressed his/her sympathy for me and our class, remembering The Tragedy of Political Science, promptly gave me some advice on calling then put $100 on his/her card to save me from another night of an empty pledge sheet.
I walked away from the experience realizing that even though we have our political differences, Americans from both sides of the political spectrum can still find ground to relate on, whether it's helping those in Haiti or the dread of a capstone text.
Unfortunately, these moments are few and far between, but the only way politics in the US is going to be taken seriously, and more importantly become an effective institution, is by recognizing our differences, instead of promoting them. Collectively we have to find common ground to better society or else run the risk of making another edition of The Tragedy of Political Science necessary to describe our current mistakes that will plague society for years to come.
A change in US politics may seem as likely as Brett Favre staying retired, but things were looking pretty bad Tuesday night in the basement of Founders when differences were put to the side, familiarities were established, and action was taken toward a common goal.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Better than watching election returns in Mass.
Whether you are a Billy Joel fan or not, you probably remember his great song, "We Didn't Start the Fire." Here it is, set to pictures... very, very cool. I never did know the words. Turn up volume, sit back and enjoy a review of 50 years of history in less than 3 minutes! Thanks to Billy Joel and some guy from the University of Chicago with a lot of spare time and Google. Top left gives you full screen....top right lets you pause. Bottom left shows the year. The older you are, the more pictures you will recognize. Anyone over age 50 should remember over 90% of what they see. ENJOY!!!!
We Didn't Start The Fire
We Didn't Start The Fire
Professors and being liberal
Did you know that conservatives wanted to be dentists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?em
More on attributing blame for policy failures
The link below will take you to an interview that will appear on Bill Moyers' Journal this coming Friday. Since you all likely have more interesting things to do on Friday night at 9pm, here's what you'd miss. Notice the obvious connection to the professors and liberalism tandem as well.
This story has been forwarded to you from
http://www.alternet.org by dani.thomas@wartburg.edu
From the next Bill Moyers' Journal. Interview with Thomas Frank that explains the liberalism-professor tandem as well as anything. And also the failure of Obama, as my response to Krugman's column seeks to point out from yesterday.
-------------------------------------
Bill Moyers & Thomas Frank: How America's Demented Politics Let the GOP Off the Hook for Their Giant Mess
http://www.alternet.org/story/145249
Bill Moyers interviews Thomas Frank on how our short attention span has allowed conservatives to escape blame for their role in the economic meltdown.
This story has been forwarded to you from
http://www.alternet.org by dani.thomas@wartburg.edu
From the next Bill Moyers' Journal. Interview with Thomas Frank that explains the liberalism-professor tandem as well as anything. And also the failure of Obama, as my response to Krugman's column seeks to point out from yesterday.
-------------------------------------
Bill Moyers & Thomas Frank: How America's Demented Politics Let the GOP Off the Hook for Their Giant Mess
http://www.alternet.org/story/145249
Bill Moyers interviews Thomas Frank on how our short attention span has allowed conservatives to escape blame for their role in the economic meltdown.
Comment on Paul Krugma's column 1/18/10
In his column Monday, Krugman compared Obama's apparen reluctance to remind Americans that he inherited the economy in shambles from Bush with Reagan's constant reference to Jimmy Carter's economic policy failures. My take is more broadly framed on the communication differences between Obama and Reagan.
74.
Dan Thomas
Cedar Falls, Iowa
January 18th, 2010
8:50 am
The contrast with Reagan is instructive, particularly in light of candidate Obama's recognition that Reagan's presidency was more transformative than Clinton's. To be sure, transformative it was; and the ghost of the Gipper still hovers above the failure of Democrats to take the golden opportunity they have to undo much of the damage of the rhetorical de-legitimation of government that haunts Obama's efforts to "do too much" in a context where the lingering effects of three decades worth of government-deligitimation efforts leave a public that is still not convinced that government is not inherently bad at worst or grossly incompetent at best.
The flat-out failure of the fiscal regime constructed by Reagan and taken to its absurd conclusion by Bush II ought to have been seized by Obama as the opportunity it was: to remind us that efforts to demonize government as an alien beast in an institutional Republic is a tad dishonest at best and a transparent excuse for redistributing the wealth upward to an unseemly and immoral degree at worst. When we need to be reminded by Warren Buffet that it makes no sense that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does, it's fair to ask why a Democratic President has failed to use this quickly-vanishing chance to counter the Reagan dogma.
The Reagan White House spent a lot of time blaming Carter for the economic ills that persisted well after the transformative first Reagan budget was adopted. But the Reaganites also expended enormous efforts convincing the mainstream media and Democrats on the Hill that the 1980 vote signified "a shift to the right" by the electorate and not simply an effort to throw Carter out on grounds of poor performance. A cottage industry in academic political science has since been erected around the proposition that the 1980 vote did not mark a conservative grassroots groundswell that embraced Reagan's policies. But then, as now, it's not really what was that mattered so much as what the press and members of Congress thought was the case and thought what the public believed. Their perceptions, of course, were clearly affected by their estimation of Reagan's skill as a teacher and as an opinion leader on the question of government's competence vis-a-vis the mythical "magic of the marketplace" that was spun as the path to rescuing the Republic. Obama was right in citing the power of Reagan to move the government by pandering to a cynical part of the American psyche that finds little grounds to extend trust to governmental efforts of all but the military sort.
But he's been dead-wrong in failing to use this opportunity to restore a sense of balance in the public mind, where suggestions of government initiative of the most modest kind are shamelessly derogated as socialist government takeovers of a mythically competitive free market that, left to its own devices, allocates rewards efficiently and fairly. It's not Obama's task alone to de-mythologize the Reagan assault on government; nor is it simply Reagan and the 1986 tax reform legislation sponsored, after all, by Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt that lingers on as framework of a failed way of funding government in an effective and fair way. An entire political party -- or its remnants in the aftermath of two elections unkind to candidates bearing its brand -- remains committed to the failed tax policies that Obama himself has yet to scrap.
As the mega-recession comes to its technical end, one hopes that it is not too late to rediscover what being faithful to the Democratic Party's heritage really means, not what a sinking vessel that long ago fell short of carrying the Republic forward might be said to think of that heritage.
74.
Dan Thomas
Cedar Falls, Iowa
January 18th, 2010
8:50 am
The contrast with Reagan is instructive, particularly in light of candidate Obama's recognition that Reagan's presidency was more transformative than Clinton's. To be sure, transformative it was; and the ghost of the Gipper still hovers above the failure of Democrats to take the golden opportunity they have to undo much of the damage of the rhetorical de-legitimation of government that haunts Obama's efforts to "do too much" in a context where the lingering effects of three decades worth of government-deligitimation efforts leave a public that is still not convinced that government is not inherently bad at worst or grossly incompetent at best.
The flat-out failure of the fiscal regime constructed by Reagan and taken to its absurd conclusion by Bush II ought to have been seized by Obama as the opportunity it was: to remind us that efforts to demonize government as an alien beast in an institutional Republic is a tad dishonest at best and a transparent excuse for redistributing the wealth upward to an unseemly and immoral degree at worst. When we need to be reminded by Warren Buffet that it makes no sense that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does, it's fair to ask why a Democratic President has failed to use this quickly-vanishing chance to counter the Reagan dogma.
The Reagan White House spent a lot of time blaming Carter for the economic ills that persisted well after the transformative first Reagan budget was adopted. But the Reaganites also expended enormous efforts convincing the mainstream media and Democrats on the Hill that the 1980 vote signified "a shift to the right" by the electorate and not simply an effort to throw Carter out on grounds of poor performance. A cottage industry in academic political science has since been erected around the proposition that the 1980 vote did not mark a conservative grassroots groundswell that embraced Reagan's policies. But then, as now, it's not really what was that mattered so much as what the press and members of Congress thought was the case and thought what the public believed. Their perceptions, of course, were clearly affected by their estimation of Reagan's skill as a teacher and as an opinion leader on the question of government's competence vis-a-vis the mythical "magic of the marketplace" that was spun as the path to rescuing the Republic. Obama was right in citing the power of Reagan to move the government by pandering to a cynical part of the American psyche that finds little grounds to extend trust to governmental efforts of all but the military sort.
But he's been dead-wrong in failing to use this opportunity to restore a sense of balance in the public mind, where suggestions of government initiative of the most modest kind are shamelessly derogated as socialist government takeovers of a mythically competitive free market that, left to its own devices, allocates rewards efficiently and fairly. It's not Obama's task alone to de-mythologize the Reagan assault on government; nor is it simply Reagan and the 1986 tax reform legislation sponsored, after all, by Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt that lingers on as framework of a failed way of funding government in an effective and fair way. An entire political party -- or its remnants in the aftermath of two elections unkind to candidates bearing its brand -- remains committed to the failed tax policies that Obama himself has yet to scrap.
As the mega-recession comes to its technical end, one hopes that it is not too late to rediscover what being faithful to the Democratic Party's heritage really means, not what a sinking vessel that long ago fell short of carrying the Republic forward might be said to think of that heritage.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
What's up?
Happy Sunday, capstoners:
Good news is we're past the halfway mark of January and we've only been in school for a week. Bad news, as it were, is we're a long way from Spring, 2010. Bad news on a macro scale is Haiti's post-earthquake devastation, but even that has a good-news element: it's restored a sense of proportion or perspective to the things Americans find themselves griping about regularly, and its afforded us the chance to do something for those truly in dire straits even if it's only donating to the relief efforts. In a country with a median income of less than 2 dollars a day, any size gift is worthwhile, and as shown in Nicholas Kristof's column in today's NYT, it will provide health benefits for the giver as well. Cell phone contributions of ten bucks can be made by texting the word "HAITI" to 90999 for the Red Cross or 20222 for Bill Clinton's global initiave foundation's relief efforts. Neither takes a lot off the top for administrative costs, as does Citibank if you use a VISA card from there, which is itself a commentary of the self-proclaimed masters of the universe residing on Wall St. There's also, at a micro-level, the loss of Nico Kadimoke, particularly for best freind Ashley Blosch in our class, to lupus, one of -those ill-understood auto-immune disorders that continues to remind us how little we know about the things that cut down the best of our young people well in advance of the time that we can understand. Obamadogs is a place to honor what is good as well as give due to the bad news parts of our news and politics these days. The two sides of life are inextricably interwoven, as the Haiti story shows. True. there's the Limbaugh line, seconded by Iowa's Steve King, who called for the immediate deportation of undocumented Haitians so they could go back and clean up the mess of the earthquake in their home of origin; but there's also the generosity that natural disasters of this magnitude bring out in the response of Americans and others who recoil at the undeserved devastation and squalor that inexplicably visits the places on the globe least prepared to deal with it. Jeremy Rifvin, for example, has a post on Hugginton Post elaborating what the response to the earthquake reveals about Human Nature -- that is the heart of a book he's just published called the Empathic Civilization --which is an assault on those who argue blindly that we are all self-seeking rational actors who should follow their instincts to look out for No. 1 (a view that is not only embraced by Rush Limbaugh but the Rational Actor school of economics and political science as well.)
In any event, this is a big week in the life of this democracy. Tuesday's verdict on the successor to Ted Kennedy will have repercussions well beyond Massachusetts, and that would be my nominee for the second most important story of the week following Haiti.
For number three, the chatting classes have seem to think the book Game Change is the third story. I have a very different view and have posted my own comment for what it's worth on the online verion of Frank Rich's column today in the NYT. I'd like to hear what others in the class would nominate as top stories before we get a change to share assessments tomorrow eve along with the first third of Ricci.
Thoughts?
Good news is we're past the halfway mark of January and we've only been in school for a week. Bad news, as it were, is we're a long way from Spring, 2010. Bad news on a macro scale is Haiti's post-earthquake devastation, but even that has a good-news element: it's restored a sense of proportion or perspective to the things Americans find themselves griping about regularly, and its afforded us the chance to do something for those truly in dire straits even if it's only donating to the relief efforts. In a country with a median income of less than 2 dollars a day, any size gift is worthwhile, and as shown in Nicholas Kristof's column in today's NYT, it will provide health benefits for the giver as well. Cell phone contributions of ten bucks can be made by texting the word "HAITI" to 90999 for the Red Cross or 20222 for Bill Clinton's global initiave foundation's relief efforts. Neither takes a lot off the top for administrative costs, as does Citibank if you use a VISA card from there, which is itself a commentary of the self-proclaimed masters of the universe residing on Wall St. There's also, at a micro-level, the loss of Nico Kadimoke, particularly for best freind Ashley Blosch in our class, to lupus, one of -those ill-understood auto-immune disorders that continues to remind us how little we know about the things that cut down the best of our young people well in advance of the time that we can understand. Obamadogs is a place to honor what is good as well as give due to the bad news parts of our news and politics these days. The two sides of life are inextricably interwoven, as the Haiti story shows. True. there's the Limbaugh line, seconded by Iowa's Steve King, who called for the immediate deportation of undocumented Haitians so they could go back and clean up the mess of the earthquake in their home of origin; but there's also the generosity that natural disasters of this magnitude bring out in the response of Americans and others who recoil at the undeserved devastation and squalor that inexplicably visits the places on the globe least prepared to deal with it. Jeremy Rifvin, for example, has a post on Hugginton Post elaborating what the response to the earthquake reveals about Human Nature -- that is the heart of a book he's just published called the Empathic Civilization --which is an assault on those who argue blindly that we are all self-seeking rational actors who should follow their instincts to look out for No. 1 (a view that is not only embraced by Rush Limbaugh but the Rational Actor school of economics and political science as well.)
In any event, this is a big week in the life of this democracy. Tuesday's verdict on the successor to Ted Kennedy will have repercussions well beyond Massachusetts, and that would be my nominee for the second most important story of the week following Haiti.
For number three, the chatting classes have seem to think the book Game Change is the third story. I have a very different view and have posted my own comment for what it's worth on the online verion of Frank Rich's column today in the NYT. I'd like to hear what others in the class would nominate as top stories before we get a change to share assessments tomorrow eve along with the first third of Ricci.
Thoughts?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Haitian Earthquake
You'd not expect a natural disaster of the magnitude of Haiti's earthquake would incite much other than a unanimous sense of horror and sympathy on the part of Americans. But how far from the truth this expectation is in the case of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. I expect that you've all heard their remarks by now: the former blamed the earthquake on the Haitians' "pact with the devil" to overthrow the French, which God has avenged in the form of a curse of natural disasters such as hurricanes and, now, a massive earthquake. Limbaugh blasted Obama for exploiting the opportunity to curry favor with the American black community by extending aid to the victims of the quake. Fortunately, these kinds of comments were few and far between, and vast numbers of Americans have chipped in private donations to help deal with a devastating situation.
How goes the Ricci reading? Any questions to address in this forum?
Enjoy the warmer weather. It won't last forever!
How goes the Ricci reading? Any questions to address in this forum?
Enjoy the warmer weather. It won't last forever!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Lee Sigelman (1945-2009)
It is with a personal sense of sorrow that I announce that Lee Sigelman died on December 22, 2009 at his home in suburban Washington, D.C. Lee was a prolific political scientist, a popular professor at George Washington University, and a personal friend. He authored or coauthored some 250 articles and eight books while also serving two terms as Editor of the American Political Science Review, the discipline's flagship journal for scholarly research. I was fortunate to have worked with Lee and his wife Carol (one of the foremost authorities in the field of developmental psychology and a dean of arts and sciences at GW) on a series of projects where our mutual and decidedly non-mainstream interests intersected back in the 1980s. Among his many innovations, the popular blog "The Monkey Cage" -- where his postings bear the unimitable Sigelman stamp of self-deprecating good humor mixed with incisive intelligence -- lives on, along with countless colleagues, students, and creative lines of scholarship that were deeply affected by his infectious inquisitiveness and fundamental decency. Needless to say, he will be sorely missed.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The student-loan process
For those interested in "how the system works," the case of the current effort by the Obama Administration to remove the banks as middlemen in the huge market for student college loans is revealing.
The Huffington Post is doing an important investigative series on this, and the initial report on their findings is available at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/how-nonprofits-won-specia_n_415028.html
It's not (yet) entirely bad news, but neither is it a done-deal good news story (yet) either.
DT
The Huffington Post is doing an important investigative series on this, and the initial report on their findings is available at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/how-nonprofits-won-specia_n_415028.html
It's not (yet) entirely bad news, but neither is it a done-deal good news story (yet) either.
DT
What works and doesn't in America
Try this piece out for an interesting classification of what we do well and what's in big trouble in the US (according to the author anyway).
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-schell7-2010jan07,0,1000455,full.story
Notice that government -- federal and state/local -- is in the broken column. Hardly a surprise. But I'd also broaden that to include the American understanding of government, which is in turn a major reason why government is broken. It then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle: Americans detest an ineffective, incompetent government and will not tolerate any proposal to expand the authority of such a dysfunctional monster to address problems like financial reform, job creation, school improvement or health care reform because they "know" already government is synonymous with silly bickering by self-important pols who pretend to worry about the problems of real people while focusing the real energies on campaign cash from corporate donors who they dare not offend by reigning in their excesses.
I'm interested in what the rest of you would add to our subtract from the three columns.
DT
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-schell7-2010jan07,0,1000455,full.story
Notice that government -- federal and state/local -- is in the broken column. Hardly a surprise. But I'd also broaden that to include the American understanding of government, which is in turn a major reason why government is broken. It then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle: Americans detest an ineffective, incompetent government and will not tolerate any proposal to expand the authority of such a dysfunctional monster to address problems like financial reform, job creation, school improvement or health care reform because they "know" already government is synonymous with silly bickering by self-important pols who pretend to worry about the problems of real people while focusing the real energies on campaign cash from corporate donors who they dare not offend by reigning in their excesses.
I'm interested in what the rest of you would add to our subtract from the three columns.
DT
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Comment on Tom Friedman's 1/6 column
Below is my commentary on Tom Friedman's column from today, entitled "Father Knows Best." In it, he salutes the efforts of the underwear bomber's father to notify authorities and intercept his son before he acted on his new-found jihadist views.
My take is a bit different, calling attention to a quote he incorporates about the importance of norms of acceptable conduct within any culture that carry more weight than laws, guns or threats. My view is that this is something we too could be practicing more in our own politics.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"People need to be governed both from the outside, through compliance with rules, and from the inside, inspired by shared values. That is why shame is so important."
Good words, and a good call on citing the good citizenship of the would-be bomber's father. It's too bad we don't see more of this kind of self-policing -- or at least attempts at such -- in the spiraling incivility that has overtaken our own politics.
Last evening, Jonathan Alter -- as a guest on the Rachel Maddow Show -- advised that President Obama invite Dick Cheney to the White House for a face-to-face talk about the effect of the former Vice President's incessant whining about Obama's conduct of the War on Terror. Alter's point was that the actual impact of the Cheney tirade-in-perpetuity was, ironically, to embolden the very enemies Cheney fears aren't being made to feel fearful enough by this Administration.
Taking this column as a cue, surely there exists in Cheney's circle someone closer to the former Vice President who, in the spirit of the Nigerian father, is moved to do the country's and the President's bidding under the radar of the public press. Putting the shared values of true patriotism ahead of partisan and personal ties, such a person could deliver, as a friend, the same exact message that Mr. Alter knows would not be received, let alone taken to heart, were it sent by Obama to Cheney directly. Shame, indeed, is important -- except when there is, sadly, no shame.
My take is a bit different, calling attention to a quote he incorporates about the importance of norms of acceptable conduct within any culture that carry more weight than laws, guns or threats. My view is that this is something we too could be practicing more in our own politics.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"People need to be governed both from the outside, through compliance with rules, and from the inside, inspired by shared values. That is why shame is so important."
Good words, and a good call on citing the good citizenship of the would-be bomber's father. It's too bad we don't see more of this kind of self-policing -- or at least attempts at such -- in the spiraling incivility that has overtaken our own politics.
Last evening, Jonathan Alter -- as a guest on the Rachel Maddow Show -- advised that President Obama invite Dick Cheney to the White House for a face-to-face talk about the effect of the former Vice President's incessant whining about Obama's conduct of the War on Terror. Alter's point was that the actual impact of the Cheney tirade-in-perpetuity was, ironically, to embolden the very enemies Cheney fears aren't being made to feel fearful enough by this Administration.
Taking this column as a cue, surely there exists in Cheney's circle someone closer to the former Vice President who, in the spirit of the Nigerian father, is moved to do the country's and the President's bidding under the radar of the public press. Putting the shared values of true patriotism ahead of partisan and personal ties, such a person could deliver, as a friend, the same exact message that Mr. Alter knows would not be received, let alone taken to heart, were it sent by Obama to Cheney directly. Shame, indeed, is important -- except when there is, sadly, no shame.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The governing crisis
Folks,
If you haven't seen today's columns by David Brooks and Bob Herbert, they each do a nice job of underscoring the not-so-good condition of our politics and neither endorses any easy answer to the mess.
How is it that young people -- your cohorts -- are viewing (or keeping themselves from viewing) this mess?
Inquiring minds want to know!
If you haven't seen today's columns by David Brooks and Bob Herbert, they each do a nice job of underscoring the not-so-good condition of our politics and neither endorses any easy answer to the mess.
How is it that young people -- your cohorts -- are viewing (or keeping themselves from viewing) this mess?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Welcome
This blog is for members of PS460 Perspectives in Political Science, Winter 2010, Wartburg College, or specially designated "associates" who wish to contribute to the ongoing conversation about our life in common, particularly our politics and our educational system. The title of the blog -- "obamadogs" -- is not intended to convey any particular political or editorial bias or affiiliation. There are no rules governing the content of posts to this blog, except for two: namely, that each blogger will (1) be responsible for his/her contributions to the group's conversation; and (2) treat other parties to the conversation with the same measure of respect that they expect others to display toward them.
That said, this could be fun. We are lucky to be living in extraordinary times, facing extraordinary challenges as a commonwealth and as individuals, and yet blessed with a rich inheritance--culturally, politically, economically, and educationally. Even as the material richness of this inheritance presently seems in question, we occupy a place in political space and time that is truly worthy of appreciation. And while appreciation can take many forms, for those of us fortunate enough to be able to devote scarce time and energy to an understanding of where we are and what the best path is to take from here, acting on the promise of discovering that path is, quite simply, the only appreciation that matters.
So, welcome! Let the conversation begin . . .
That said, this could be fun. We are lucky to be living in extraordinary times, facing extraordinary challenges as a commonwealth and as individuals, and yet blessed with a rich inheritance--culturally, politically, economically, and educationally. Even as the material richness of this inheritance presently seems in question, we occupy a place in political space and time that is truly worthy of appreciation. And while appreciation can take many forms, for those of us fortunate enough to be able to devote scarce time and energy to an understanding of where we are and what the best path is to take from here, acting on the promise of discovering that path is, quite simply, the only appreciation that matters.
So, welcome! Let the conversation begin . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)