538.com had an interesting article today talking about the recent populist trends that have infected both parties recently, listing key policies that they felt each side would support. I thought it was an interesting take but missed a few points on what drive's each sides populist forces.
While I agree that populism is becoming more popular on both sides of the aisle, I think it is driven mostly by emotion and anger, which is being displaced towards different groups, which is where the two sides differ and I think why they could never come to work together.
Conservative populism seems to be driven towards big government, which they feel is intrusive and elitist at best. Left-leaning populist anger seems to be aired towards what they see as big corporation and extremely wealthy individuals. I think this divide shows why the populist groups could never form a coalition. The left populists solution would be more goverment regulation, perhaps higher taxation, the essential so-called "big government" policies that populist conservatives are currently railing against.
I'd be interested to know what everyone else thinks. Does the populist movement have the potential to become a bridge between the two parties?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Joke's on Who?
Here's a little story, probably made up, but as the "healtcare summit" in Blair House on Thursday reminded us, politics is as much about "made-up stuff" as indisputable facts. Here begins the joke:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below on a lake. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 1,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
Here ends the joke, but for anyone annoyed at any subtle hints of a possible partisan bias, please check out the online New York Times "It's Debatable" blog for this weekend. This feature aims to summarize all the mainstream media's reaction to the Summit, seeking to deem who won, etc. My own comment is somwhere on the first page of comments, around number 11 or so. If you bother to read it, it will put to rest any worries about pro-Obama bias on the blogger's part.
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below on a lake. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 1,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
Here ends the joke, but for anyone annoyed at any subtle hints of a possible partisan bias, please check out the online New York Times "It's Debatable" blog for this weekend. This feature aims to summarize all the mainstream media's reaction to the Summit, seeking to deem who won, etc. My own comment is somwhere on the first page of comments, around number 11 or so. If you bother to read it, it will put to rest any worries about pro-Obama bias on the blogger's part.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Airport Recycling
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/business/energy-environment/23recycle.html?ref=science
I came across this article and found it to be some source of relief from Friedman's repeated rants on how unwilling people are to change their ways for the sake of the environment.
Although I understand there is not nearly enough being done to adjust people's consuming habits, in order for their to be any sort of modification, the level of convenience must first be expanded to make recycling and other green strategies more accessible to the public.
On campus there are recycling stations located outside dorms and there are some actually on every floor. It's sad to say, but a lot of students, including myself, will throw away a recyclable item because the trash can is closer than the recycling bin.
I've heard that there will be recycling bins available for students to use, and this is a step in the right direction. In order for humans to change their ways, their needs to be something worth modifying one's lifestyle, and the new strategy must be of some convenience.
Climate change provides the need for modification, but until there are more accessible avenues to exercise green strategies, recycling will continue to lack the attention it deserves.
However, it was refreshing to read from the Continental Airlines representative that many employees wanted to recycle, which help provide some of the initiative for the company to become more recyclable-friendly.
This is an excellent, but unfortunately rare example of recycling coming from the bottom up.
It will take similar efforts of airports, airline companies, and other forms of industry to make recycling more readily available for recycling to take precedent over the more convenient and time-tested practice of throwing stuff in the trash.
The article demonstrates that humans have it in them to change, but at the same time, it can be hard to muster the strength to change when it's so easy and almost natural to go about the standard routine, even if we're putting ourselves in harm's way.
I came across this article and found it to be some source of relief from Friedman's repeated rants on how unwilling people are to change their ways for the sake of the environment.
Although I understand there is not nearly enough being done to adjust people's consuming habits, in order for their to be any sort of modification, the level of convenience must first be expanded to make recycling and other green strategies more accessible to the public.
On campus there are recycling stations located outside dorms and there are some actually on every floor. It's sad to say, but a lot of students, including myself, will throw away a recyclable item because the trash can is closer than the recycling bin.
I've heard that there will be recycling bins available for students to use, and this is a step in the right direction. In order for humans to change their ways, their needs to be something worth modifying one's lifestyle, and the new strategy must be of some convenience.
Climate change provides the need for modification, but until there are more accessible avenues to exercise green strategies, recycling will continue to lack the attention it deserves.
However, it was refreshing to read from the Continental Airlines representative that many employees wanted to recycle, which help provide some of the initiative for the company to become more recyclable-friendly.
This is an excellent, but unfortunately rare example of recycling coming from the bottom up.
It will take similar efforts of airports, airline companies, and other forms of industry to make recycling more readily available for recycling to take precedent over the more convenient and time-tested practice of throwing stuff in the trash.
The article demonstrates that humans have it in them to change, but at the same time, it can be hard to muster the strength to change when it's so easy and almost natural to go about the standard routine, even if we're putting ourselves in harm's way.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Partisan tilts among Millenials
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1497/democrats-edge-among-millennials-slips
This link will put you in touch with the recent Pew Center poll on the state of partisan identification by generation. Millenials, born after 1980, have come back to the field a little during 2009, but they still are the most heavily Democratic cohort among the five generations currently comprising the American electorate: the Greatest Generation, The Silent Generation, The Boomers, GenX, and Millenials. That they favor the Democrats over Republicans even after slipping since the Obama election is both good and bad news for 2010. The good news is that this is a generation that is predisposed to view government in positive terms; the bad news, of course, is that the youngest cohort in the electorate is notorious for not turning out in midterm elections.
This link will put you in touch with the recent Pew Center poll on the state of partisan identification by generation. Millenials, born after 1980, have come back to the field a little during 2009, but they still are the most heavily Democratic cohort among the five generations currently comprising the American electorate: the Greatest Generation, The Silent Generation, The Boomers, GenX, and Millenials. That they favor the Democrats over Republicans even after slipping since the Obama election is both good and bad news for 2010. The good news is that this is a generation that is predisposed to view government in positive terms; the bad news, of course, is that the youngest cohort in the electorate is notorious for not turning out in midterm elections.
Top Ten Political Books & Movies?
The link is to Chris Cilliza's column in the Washington Post, "The Fix." Among his top nonfiction books are a couple that gained mention by Ricci. The Million Dollar Question is, Which one(s)?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-notes/the-best-political-movies.html?wprss=thefix
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-notes/the-best-political-movies.html?wprss=thefix
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Another fine idea . . .
Folks: The much heralded departure of Evan Bayh from the Senate at the end of his second term this year has promptede a deluge of commentary, much of it from Mr. Bayh himself, on just how broken our government is. Since this is a theme that Friedman focuses on at the outset of his book and is daily fare in the news coverage of our politics, I'm thinking that this poses a real opportunity to use part of Monday's class set aside for learning how to do Q by using Obamadogs as a place for all of us to chime in with statements of opinion on the nature of our governing crisis. If this turns up enough response, I could take the statements and compile them into a Q sample we could do and analyze as class Monday following the Friedman discussion. So here's my start:
Our politics are positively braindead: Our Congress fiddles while our country's future burns before our very eyes.
Obama should give up on the bipartisanship thing: Republicans have no interest in cooperating with Democrats. Sadly, they'll probably reap a short-term benefit from this.
Democrats are a poor excuse for a majority party. They had the largest majority in the House and Senate in recent history, and they blew it.
Obama was out of his mind, promising a change in our politics. American politics does not change unless a huge catastrophe prompts it.
Somebody needs to put a muzzle on the former Vice President. Dick Cheney seems hell bent on politicizing the War on Terror. Any Democrat who'd dare say in public that the president is aiding the terrorists would be targeted by everyone as unpatriotic and nuts.
This is a smart country, yet we have seemingly gotten ourself into a world of hurt by a long list of absolutely dumb decisions.
Whatever happened to politicians who put the country ahead of the personal re-election? The political leaders we're left with are an insult to the American people.
The Democrats seem unexplicably preoccupied with blaming George Bush for everything.
Why do members of the Democratic party have to be so condescending to those who don't share their policy preferences?
How can the "Party of No" get a free pass by the political press without having to defend their irresponsible refusal to lift a finger to clean up the mess that they are primarily responsible for?
Forming a Bipartisan Commission to investigate the debt crisis is a cowardly confession that those elected to make hard decisions can't do their job. It's another smokescreen for a failed system with failed representatives who will not own up to their failure.
Obama is not up to the job of fixing the governing crisis. Its doubtful that any president facing the challenges he is would be.
We are quickly becoming a second-rate power, and yet we have the arrogance to think we can still afford to serve as the world's policeman. We don't have the resources to be squandering American troops and borrowed money in a wild goose chase in Afghanistan.
It's obvious that there's a double standard at work. If middle-class wage earners had been responsible for bring the country to its knees econonically, it wouldn't have been bailed out and allowed to use taxpayer's money to pay millions in bonuses for those who's incompetence led to th problems initially.
The future is going to test our mettle as surely as did the Depression and world War II. But our national commitment to reclaiming our status seems a lot less genuine and energetic this time.
The country is experiencing nothing less than a spiritual crisis.
This will serve as a start. Please feel free to join in. Thanks,DT
Our politics are positively braindead: Our Congress fiddles while our country's future burns before our very eyes.
Obama should give up on the bipartisanship thing: Republicans have no interest in cooperating with Democrats. Sadly, they'll probably reap a short-term benefit from this.
Democrats are a poor excuse for a majority party. They had the largest majority in the House and Senate in recent history, and they blew it.
Obama was out of his mind, promising a change in our politics. American politics does not change unless a huge catastrophe prompts it.
Somebody needs to put a muzzle on the former Vice President. Dick Cheney seems hell bent on politicizing the War on Terror. Any Democrat who'd dare say in public that the president is aiding the terrorists would be targeted by everyone as unpatriotic and nuts.
This is a smart country, yet we have seemingly gotten ourself into a world of hurt by a long list of absolutely dumb decisions.
Whatever happened to politicians who put the country ahead of the personal re-election? The political leaders we're left with are an insult to the American people.
The Democrats seem unexplicably preoccupied with blaming George Bush for everything.
Why do members of the Democratic party have to be so condescending to those who don't share their policy preferences?
How can the "Party of No" get a free pass by the political press without having to defend their irresponsible refusal to lift a finger to clean up the mess that they are primarily responsible for?
Forming a Bipartisan Commission to investigate the debt crisis is a cowardly confession that those elected to make hard decisions can't do their job. It's another smokescreen for a failed system with failed representatives who will not own up to their failure.
Obama is not up to the job of fixing the governing crisis. Its doubtful that any president facing the challenges he is would be.
We are quickly becoming a second-rate power, and yet we have the arrogance to think we can still afford to serve as the world's policeman. We don't have the resources to be squandering American troops and borrowed money in a wild goose chase in Afghanistan.
It's obvious that there's a double standard at work. If middle-class wage earners had been responsible for bring the country to its knees econonically, it wouldn't have been bailed out and allowed to use taxpayer's money to pay millions in bonuses for those who's incompetence led to th problems initially.
The future is going to test our mettle as surely as did the Depression and world War II. But our national commitment to reclaiming our status seems a lot less genuine and energetic this time.
The country is experiencing nothing less than a spiritual crisis.
This will serve as a start. Please feel free to join in. Thanks,DT
Weekly Rant
I had the fortune of having lunch with a gentleman who created scholarships in memory of his mother at a luncheon on Tuesday in the Ballrooms. He was a '57 graduate, who spent his life helping others, including as a pastor on the South side of Chicago in the 60's. The story of his mom was really inspirational, as she was extremely active in the community and it was truly honor an to receive a scholarship named in her memory.
The man was so proud to be a Wartburg alum and it was touching to see that Wartburg meant so much to him. It got me thinking about all the people I've met and the memories I've had during my short time here, and felt fortunate for the experience.
Then I resorted back to my pessimistic self as I heard one of the members of the administration thank all the donors for their generosity as it helps make college affordable for students in the face of rising college tuition.
I'm not disagreeing with what this administrative member said, as I am grateful for all the donations that alumni and friends of Wartburg provide, especially those who may be struggling financially, but still manage to give, but he forgot to mention that Wartburg itself is the cause of the high demand for these scholarships.
He went on to state that Wartburg has a goal of creating 100 more scholarships over the next 2 years and this really pissed me off. I'm upset that I have to keep paying more to go here, but I lost it when I saw first-hand Wartburg manipulating the generosity of so many in their quest to make a buck.
These donors could give their money elsewhere, but they choose to invest it into Wartburg, and while I'm sure the Wartburg Administration appreciates their acts of charity, it's for the wrong reasons.
They want to keep raising tuition, so they need as many life preserves (scholarships) as they can get to keep students here but still make bank off of the students.
I'm frustrated that the Wartburg does not do more to help students out financially, but it's really disappointing to see them take advantage of others' generosity instead of learning something from it.
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of those who were at the luncheon or attended a similar setting in the past.
The man was so proud to be a Wartburg alum and it was touching to see that Wartburg meant so much to him. It got me thinking about all the people I've met and the memories I've had during my short time here, and felt fortunate for the experience.
Then I resorted back to my pessimistic self as I heard one of the members of the administration thank all the donors for their generosity as it helps make college affordable for students in the face of rising college tuition.
I'm not disagreeing with what this administrative member said, as I am grateful for all the donations that alumni and friends of Wartburg provide, especially those who may be struggling financially, but still manage to give, but he forgot to mention that Wartburg itself is the cause of the high demand for these scholarships.
He went on to state that Wartburg has a goal of creating 100 more scholarships over the next 2 years and this really pissed me off. I'm upset that I have to keep paying more to go here, but I lost it when I saw first-hand Wartburg manipulating the generosity of so many in their quest to make a buck.
These donors could give their money elsewhere, but they choose to invest it into Wartburg, and while I'm sure the Wartburg Administration appreciates their acts of charity, it's for the wrong reasons.
They want to keep raising tuition, so they need as many life preserves (scholarships) as they can get to keep students here but still make bank off of the students.
I'm frustrated that the Wartburg does not do more to help students out financially, but it's really disappointing to see them take advantage of others' generosity instead of learning something from it.
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of those who were at the luncheon or attended a similar setting in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)