Mon. Jan. 30, 2012:
1. My Republican friends have told me that the Obama administration sometimes shows breathtaking incompetence, "unsurprising for a former Chicago community organizer with minimal business or governing skills." For example, Eric Holder "is the most inept Attorney General ever," and Hillary Clinton "has made mistake after mistake at State." Today's NYT lead story, about Iraq's outrage regarding U.S. drones, lends credence about one State Department faux pas: "The State Department needs to get through its head that it is not an agency adept at running military-style operations," said a Brookings Institution [hardly a conservative think-tank!] military robotics scholar. It does seem as if someone should have explained & justified continuing protective drone use with Iraq's government, as a precondition for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq. Did U.S. commanders drop this ball? State Department folks?
2. When is somebody going to call Republican Congressional loudmouths on their theme that President Obama "stopped governing months ago" to "go into total campaigning mode"? On the one hand, it is only as true about Obama as it has been for every president since Andrew Jackson -- only President John Quincy Adams (1829-1833) may have been blissfully ignorant of the need in a democratic republic to begin campaigning for re-election as early as his 1st Inaugural Address. And on the other hand, such Republican criticism relies on sublime ignorance amidst the U.S. electorate, regarding the nature of past presidential electioneering & governing -- and there, alas, it is probably correct. ["Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" -- H. L. Mencken]. In fact, nearly all Republican campaign statements so far have been shibboleths playing to our fellow citizens' fears & ignorance. It would be too much to expect Sarah Palin & other merchants of Tea Party instincts to curb their base reflexes. But the Republican "establishment," at least, should be expected to care enough about our democratic republic's future to demand much more of its standard-bearers.
3. Did anyone else happen to see Bob Schieffer's CBS Face the Nation program this past Sunday? morning? If so, you too got treated to "Exhibit A" of partisan spokespersons on both sides, exploiting Schieffer's hospitable air time for tired old boiler-plate bashings -- Michelle Bachmann, Reince Priebus, and Allen West on the right, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the left. This is particularly sad, because the senior newsman Schieffer represents a bygone era of relative bipartisan courtesy & grace. Yet there were all his guests, fulfilling the depressing ritual of insulting viewers' intelligence with another rhetorical arms-race of ridiculing the opposition. Schieffer: "Are you tacitly agreeing with Gingrich's charge that Romney is a liar?" "Oh, no! OUR candidates are all honest." No wonder all U.S. politicians are in such foul odor. Grab your lantern, and we'll join Diogenes's search for one honest political creature, to help save the USA's democratic republic.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
"Entitlement" Sex, Lies, and ObstructionTape
Fri. Jan. 27, 2012:
Don't get me wrong -- the following criticism is bipartisan.
Democrats over decades have inadvertently sapped our democratic republic by succumbing to the "American exceptionalism" that federal government can save every citizen [and even noncitizen] from herself/himself. And not just at home, but also abroad. [Google reviews on Thomas Edsall's new volume, The Age of Austerity.]
At home, everything from farm subsidies to organized labor's paid vacations & early retirement packages come to mind. Abroad, we keep spending billions on nation-building, from the Balkans under Clinton to Afghanistan & Iraq under Bush & Obama.
But by almost any sane measure, Republicans seem even more reckless these days, and their mindless vindictiveness appears to blind them to their own nation-destructing. At least 3 ways come to mind.
1. "Entitlement" Sex: The zeal with which John Boehner, Eric Kantor, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan obsess on cutting "entitlements" is almost like virtual Sex to them. And even Democrats, when fighting these guys, fall into the same "entitlement" lingo. Yet, as a Maine friend points out, how can "entitlements" be such a single-minded target, when much if not most of these "entitlements" have been earned, by a lifetime of working recipients' taxable incomes? These are not federal government handouts, but benefits achieved from sweat off a million nameless Americans' brows. YET: Democrats themselves, and the "liberal" mainstream media, never challenge this word "entitlements."
2. Lies: Hitler notoriously advised his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels that if you are going to lie to your populace, make it a big lie, and repeat it over & over. Enter Republicans since Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2009. One tiny example of a gazillion: a CNN Republican critic of Obama's State of the Union speech said Obama contradicted himself by praising the huge success of General Motors bailout, but later promised "no more bailouts." However, not only had Republicans voted overwhelmingly for that GM and other bailouts back in 2008 & 2009; but also, this CNN critique ingenously elides over the fact that Obama always preferred "no bailouts"! Yet, what else can you do in 2008/2009, when private sector Wall Streeters and Detroit automakers ran roughshod during Bush-era deregulation and ignored foreign-auto quality, and brought us to the brink of a 2nd Great Depression?
Remember an earlier State of the Union speech, when obscure backbench South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson interrupted "You lie"? How ironic that -- other than South Carolina's tea party senator Jim Demint -- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell leads the league in half-truths en route to their early-2009 announced goal of making Barack Hussein Obama a 1-term president. Some patriotism, from the flag-wrapped Republican party!
3. ObstructionTape: One of McConnell's & Boehner's & Romney's favorite ubiquitous Republican charges is that Barack Hussein Obama has "failed to lead." How does that square with our minds-eye surveillance Tape of Congress's obstructionism on every Obama initiative since Jan. 20, 2009? Remember this, in the tea party spirit of Demint's spring 2009 comment -- "If we can defeat Obama on health care, we can break him right away"?
In closing, Thomas Edsall's brand new Age of Austerity, introduced on PBS last night, may help our children's generation rescue our beloved USA from its current dysfunctional "democratic republic."
Don't get me wrong -- the following criticism is bipartisan.
Democrats over decades have inadvertently sapped our democratic republic by succumbing to the "American exceptionalism" that federal government can save every citizen [and even noncitizen] from herself/himself. And not just at home, but also abroad. [Google reviews on Thomas Edsall's new volume, The Age of Austerity.]
At home, everything from farm subsidies to organized labor's paid vacations & early retirement packages come to mind. Abroad, we keep spending billions on nation-building, from the Balkans under Clinton to Afghanistan & Iraq under Bush & Obama.
But by almost any sane measure, Republicans seem even more reckless these days, and their mindless vindictiveness appears to blind them to their own nation-destructing. At least 3 ways come to mind.
1. "Entitlement" Sex: The zeal with which John Boehner, Eric Kantor, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan obsess on cutting "entitlements" is almost like virtual Sex to them. And even Democrats, when fighting these guys, fall into the same "entitlement" lingo. Yet, as a Maine friend points out, how can "entitlements" be such a single-minded target, when much if not most of these "entitlements" have been earned, by a lifetime of working recipients' taxable incomes? These are not federal government handouts, but benefits achieved from sweat off a million nameless Americans' brows. YET: Democrats themselves, and the "liberal" mainstream media, never challenge this word "entitlements."
2. Lies: Hitler notoriously advised his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels that if you are going to lie to your populace, make it a big lie, and repeat it over & over. Enter Republicans since Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2009. One tiny example of a gazillion: a CNN Republican critic of Obama's State of the Union speech said Obama contradicted himself by praising the huge success of General Motors bailout, but later promised "no more bailouts." However, not only had Republicans voted overwhelmingly for that GM and other bailouts back in 2008 & 2009; but also, this CNN critique ingenously elides over the fact that Obama always preferred "no bailouts"! Yet, what else can you do in 2008/2009, when private sector Wall Streeters and Detroit automakers ran roughshod during Bush-era deregulation and ignored foreign-auto quality, and brought us to the brink of a 2nd Great Depression?
Remember an earlier State of the Union speech, when obscure backbench South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson interrupted "You lie"? How ironic that -- other than South Carolina's tea party senator Jim Demint -- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell leads the league in half-truths en route to their early-2009 announced goal of making Barack Hussein Obama a 1-term president. Some patriotism, from the flag-wrapped Republican party!
3. ObstructionTape: One of McConnell's & Boehner's & Romney's favorite ubiquitous Republican charges is that Barack Hussein Obama has "failed to lead." How does that square with our minds-eye surveillance Tape of Congress's obstructionism on every Obama initiative since Jan. 20, 2009? Remember this, in the tea party spirit of Demint's spring 2009 comment -- "If we can defeat Obama on health care, we can break him right away"?
In closing, Thomas Edsall's brand new Age of Austerity, introduced on PBS last night, may help our children's generation rescue our beloved USA from its current dysfunctional "democratic republic."
Thursday, January 26, 2012
David Brooks, and now David Reynolds, Miss a Key Ingredient of Anti-Mormonism
Thu. Jan. 26, 2012:
Should "Gentiles" Worry about a Mormon President?
To Latter-day Saints, those not of the faith are called "Gentiles."
An old joke has it that Salt Lake City is the only place where a Jew is a Gentile.
But the Mormonism issue is not a joke, and deserves respectful airing -- not just evangelical sectarian ranting.
This is a letter submitted to The NYT, in response to David Reynolds's Jan. 26 "Why Evangelicals Don't Like Mormons," and also, David Brooks's Jan. 20 editorial, "The Wealth Issue," about Mitt Romney's money:
An old joke has it that Salt Lake City is the only place where a Jew is a Gentile.
But the Mormonism issue is not a joke, and deserves respectful airing -- not just evangelical sectarian ranting.
This is a letter submitted to The NYT, in response to David Reynolds's Jan. 26 "Why Evangelicals Don't Like Mormons," and also, David Brooks's Jan. 20 editorial, "The Wealth Issue," about Mitt Romney's money:
In the 1830's & 1840's, David Brooks says, locals feared Mormons not just "for their polygamy" but because "Mormons tended to outwork them." David S. Reynolds says essentially the same thing. But even more worrisome to Gentile settlers was Mormons' perceived corporate nature -- that Mormons voted as a bloc, and competed economically as a bloc.
As admirable a people as they may have been, Mormons' group power, reinforced by accumulated financial muscle through virtuous tithing, scared neighbors a lot.
Such anxiety was similar to the impetus behind David Wilmot's famous "Proviso" of that era: It expressed the fear that new Mexico Cession lands might be settled by slaveowners bringing gang labor with them to the Southwest -- "unfair competition" for individual farmers & townsfolk. Is there similar worry, however unjustified, about several Mormons working together at Bain Capital?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Paid Crowd at Romney's South Carolina "Concession" Speech
Tues. Jan. 24, 2012:
Did anyone else notice the fake crowd serving as Romney's backdrop for his Saturday night "concession" speech in South Carolina? Their acting job was worse than most. Clean, laughing, smiling, wholesome faces -- cheering after Romney's sentence, even the sentences with terrible news in them.
All candidates, Democratic & Republican, have staged these bogus crowds for years. [Harken back to those Nixon young Republicans of 1972 -- "4 more years! 4 more years!"] But in this age of Citizens United, super PACS, obscene millions [which might help pare down our deficits?] spent on ludicrous attack ads, these bought groupies-for-TV suggest even more that the apocalypse is near for democracy American-style. Lies everywhere!
One reason polls are so negative, not only on Congress but on nearly all of the species politicus americanus (-a, -um), is such palpable phony posturing wherever we look. If this is "the last best hope" that a democratic republic can deliver, then maybe we should heed John Cleese's [not really his, but let's go with the urban legend] advice: Leaving the British Monarchy was a big mistake, and are you finally ready to come back in?
But I still believe that we can find a cleansing agent from within. One mildly encouraging sign is a small group pushing for a Constitutional Amendment [it would be #28] negating the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, and banning corporate speech. It takes 2/3 of both Houses, and then 3/4 of the 50 state legislatures. But the effort alone might ignite a heartfelt nonpartisan "Enough" movement.
What say you all?
Did anyone else notice the fake crowd serving as Romney's backdrop for his Saturday night "concession" speech in South Carolina? Their acting job was worse than most. Clean, laughing, smiling, wholesome faces -- cheering after Romney's sentence, even the sentences with terrible news in them.
All candidates, Democratic & Republican, have staged these bogus crowds for years. [Harken back to those Nixon young Republicans of 1972 -- "4 more years! 4 more years!"] But in this age of Citizens United, super PACS, obscene millions [which might help pare down our deficits?] spent on ludicrous attack ads, these bought groupies-for-TV suggest even more that the apocalypse is near for democracy American-style. Lies everywhere!
One reason polls are so negative, not only on Congress but on nearly all of the species politicus americanus (-a, -um), is such palpable phony posturing wherever we look. If this is "the last best hope" that a democratic republic can deliver, then maybe we should heed John Cleese's [not really his, but let's go with the urban legend] advice: Leaving the British Monarchy was a big mistake, and are you finally ready to come back in?
But I still believe that we can find a cleansing agent from within. One mildly encouraging sign is a small group pushing for a Constitutional Amendment [it would be #28] negating the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, and banning corporate speech. It takes 2/3 of both Houses, and then 3/4 of the 50 state legislatures. But the effort alone might ignite a heartfelt nonpartisan "Enough" movement.
What say you all?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Justice Scalia's Recent Comment on the 2010 "Citizens United" Ruling
Mon. Jan. 23, 2012:
The other day, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- part of the 5-4 majority in the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision -- was asked if he had any regrets, given the resulting millions of dollars spent by Super Pacs on a tsunami of negative ads, in both the current Republican primary presidential campaigns of New Hampshire & South Carolina. And all in the name of "free speech."
No regrets, Scalia replied. "If you don't like all these ads, just change the channel." And if any further remedy is needed, turn to legislatures for new solutions. The 1st Amendment protects these Super Pac advertisements, he maintains, even if we don't like their anonymity, their content, their wealthy & sometimes corporate sources, or their virtual monopoly of air time reserved for radio & TV commercials.
One problem with this answer is that wealthy & anonymous donors are drowning out all other "speech."
In practice, "free speech" is now applying just to the loudest, wealthiest shouters. Conservative president Richard Nixon used to praise the "silent majority"; but is the "silent majority's" recourse reduced to casting their ballots on election day, without the benefit of competing ideas from the softer, less wealthy, identifiable voices?
And: Is it not within the purview of our High Court to guard all free speech, including that of individuals who cannot afford to shout as loudly or as often as the privileged few? Why does this fairly obvious insight need to be left to legislatures -- especially if the wealthy control legislatures too?
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the 2010 Citizens United ruling was a perfect example of the "judicial activism" that conservatives have been complaining about during the earlier more liberal Warren Court years. Do Chief Justice Roberts & his four conservative colleagues really want history to rank them this much lower than the universally admired standard set by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes?
The other day, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- part of the 5-4 majority in the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision -- was asked if he had any regrets, given the resulting millions of dollars spent by Super Pacs on a tsunami of negative ads, in both the current Republican primary presidential campaigns of New Hampshire & South Carolina. And all in the name of "free speech."
No regrets, Scalia replied. "If you don't like all these ads, just change the channel." And if any further remedy is needed, turn to legislatures for new solutions. The 1st Amendment protects these Super Pac advertisements, he maintains, even if we don't like their anonymity, their content, their wealthy & sometimes corporate sources, or their virtual monopoly of air time reserved for radio & TV commercials.
One problem with this answer is that wealthy & anonymous donors are drowning out all other "speech."
In practice, "free speech" is now applying just to the loudest, wealthiest shouters. Conservative president Richard Nixon used to praise the "silent majority"; but is the "silent majority's" recourse reduced to casting their ballots on election day, without the benefit of competing ideas from the softer, less wealthy, identifiable voices?
And: Is it not within the purview of our High Court to guard all free speech, including that of individuals who cannot afford to shout as loudly or as often as the privileged few? Why does this fairly obvious insight need to be left to legislatures -- especially if the wealthy control legislatures too?
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the 2010 Citizens United ruling was a perfect example of the "judicial activism" that conservatives have been complaining about during the earlier more liberal Warren Court years. Do Chief Justice Roberts & his four conservative colleagues really want history to rank them this much lower than the universally admired standard set by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Should "Gentiles" worry about a Mormon president?
Sat. Jan. 21, 2012:
To Latter-day Saints, those not of the faith are called "Gentiles."
An old joke has it that Salt Lake City is the only place where a Jew is a Gentile.
But the Mormonism issue is not a joke, and deserves respectful airing -- not just evangelical sectarian ranting.
Here is a letter submitted to The NYT, in response to David Brooks's Jan. 20 favorable & thoughtful editorial, "The Wealth Issue," about Mitt Romney's riches:
Normally I'm a fan of David Brooks. But, he missed an important point here:
Is there similar worry, however unjustified, when folks notice several Mormons working together at Bain Capital?
To Latter-day Saints, those not of the faith are called "Gentiles."
An old joke has it that Salt Lake City is the only place where a Jew is a Gentile.
But the Mormonism issue is not a joke, and deserves respectful airing -- not just evangelical sectarian ranting.
Here is a letter submitted to The NYT, in response to David Brooks's Jan. 20 favorable & thoughtful editorial, "The Wealth Issue," about Mitt Romney's riches:
Normally I'm a fan of David Brooks. But, he missed an important point here:
In the 1830's & 1840's, Brooks says, locals feared Mormons not just "for their polygamy" but because "Mormons tended to outwork them." But even more important was their corporate nature -- they voted as a bloc, they competed economically as a bloc.
As great a people as they were, their group power, reinforced by accumated financial muscle through virtuous tithing, scared neighbors a lot. Such anxiety was similar to the impetus behind David Wilmot's famous "Proviso" of that era: It expressed the fear that new Mexico Cession lands might be settled by slaveowners bringing gang labor with them to the Southwest. That would be daunting competition for individual farmers & townsfolk.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Searching for Fairness in Conservative Sources
Thu. Jan. 19, 2012
The Wall Street Journal used to be a reliable & reasonable conservative source, and occasionally it still has occasional even-handedness. But you know it has lost something when Rupert puts banner ads for Hannity or O'Reilly on the bottom of page one.
The National Review Online is at least thoughtful, and aspires toward William F. Buckley level of conservativism, no matter how often it falls woefully short. One reliably brilliant humor column is Rob Long's "The Long View."
And, check out the blog Instapundit.com, by a University of Tennessee professor. He is definitely a conservative, although he describes himself even more as a "libertarian."
He is among those who think Attorney General Eric Holder is the most incompetent Justice Department head ever, but he does not hesitate to blast idiotic Republican behavior.
NYT's "lefty" columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reinforces the point in yesterday's point about labor unions' going too far. Republican governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and Chris Christy of New Jersey have all gone a bit overboard in their anti-union attacks, but even Kristof concedes the following:
In the postwar years, labor unions became greedy and rewarded themselves with feather-bedding
and rigid work rules -- turning much of the public against them. Likewise, Wall Street feather-
bedding is tarnishing the public image of banks and business and undermining confidence in
capitalism itself.
The Wall Street Journal used to be a reliable & reasonable conservative source, and occasionally it still has occasional even-handedness. But you know it has lost something when Rupert puts banner ads for Hannity or O'Reilly on the bottom of page one.
The National Review Online is at least thoughtful, and aspires toward William F. Buckley level of conservativism, no matter how often it falls woefully short. One reliably brilliant humor column is Rob Long's "The Long View."
And, check out the blog Instapundit.com, by a University of Tennessee professor. He is definitely a conservative, although he describes himself even more as a "libertarian."
He is among those who think Attorney General Eric Holder is the most incompetent Justice Department head ever, but he does not hesitate to blast idiotic Republican behavior.
NYT's "lefty" columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reinforces the point in yesterday's point about labor unions' going too far. Republican governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and Chris Christy of New Jersey have all gone a bit overboard in their anti-union attacks, but even Kristof concedes the following:
In the postwar years, labor unions became greedy and rewarded themselves with feather-bedding
and rigid work rules -- turning much of the public against them. Likewise, Wall Street feather-
bedding is tarnishing the public image of banks and business and undermining confidence in
capitalism itself.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Republicans do have some good points
Wed. Jan. 18, 2012:
Although there is much to complain about
[cf. Jan. 17's http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/south-carolina-debate-fact-check/ AND
Jan. 18's lead NYT editorial "Preaching Division in South Carolina"]
in the Republican party's nominating field & process so far, it is high time to point out that Republicans deserve serious credit on certain matters:
1. By almost any measure, labor unions' past successes in achieving big-industry & government-workers' contracts with outsized wages, benefits, early-retirement packages, do need to be reined in;
2. The USA's ongoing national debt, and annual budget deficits which feed that ongoing debt, do indeed need to be addressed. And, the press needs to do a much better job of educating the person-on-the-street on the difference between national debt and annual deficit, because most of the "99%" don't have a clue!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If only Republicans had avoided reckless trashing of collective bargaining a la ideologue Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.
If only Republican ideologues in Congress could acknowledge that sharp slashing on government spending [and therefore on consumers' spending & taxpaying!] during an already gasping economy would be counterproductive,
and that the wealthy 1% should, like Warren Buffett, patriotically pay slightly higher taxes instead of claiming they should be exempt "because they are 'job creators.'"
If only Republican [and back in the Bush years, the Democrats!] candidates would campaign on legitimate issue stances, instead of a parade of lies -- Obama the non-leader, Obama the pessimist, Obama the international apologizer, Obama the food stamp president, etc. etc. etc.].
After all, there are plenty of real mistakes that Obama has made. Why not just focus on them, and tell us how you will change them? For example: Romney now says that under Obama, Iran will build nuclear weapons, but in a Romney administration Iran will not. Pure demagoguery, red meat for the ignorant -- short on truth, absent on "hows."
Final thought of the day: Proliferation of anonymous sourcing in newspapers, like,
"according to two people with direct knowledge of the plans who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them publicly." Or, "anonymity, because of the ongoing investigation."
Although there is much to complain about
[cf. Jan. 17's http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/south-carolina-debate-fact-check/ AND
Jan. 18's lead NYT editorial "Preaching Division in South Carolina"]
in the Republican party's nominating field & process so far, it is high time to point out that Republicans deserve serious credit on certain matters:
1. By almost any measure, labor unions' past successes in achieving big-industry & government-workers' contracts with outsized wages, benefits, early-retirement packages, do need to be reined in;
2. The USA's ongoing national debt, and annual budget deficits which feed that ongoing debt, do indeed need to be addressed. And, the press needs to do a much better job of educating the person-on-the-street on the difference between national debt and annual deficit, because most of the "99%" don't have a clue!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If only Republicans had avoided reckless trashing of collective bargaining a la ideologue Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.
If only Republican ideologues in Congress could acknowledge that sharp slashing on government spending [and therefore on consumers' spending & taxpaying!] during an already gasping economy would be counterproductive,
and that the wealthy 1% should, like Warren Buffett, patriotically pay slightly higher taxes instead of claiming they should be exempt "because they are 'job creators.'"
If only Republican [and back in the Bush years, the Democrats!] candidates would campaign on legitimate issue stances, instead of a parade of lies -- Obama the non-leader, Obama the pessimist, Obama the international apologizer, Obama the food stamp president, etc. etc. etc.].
After all, there are plenty of real mistakes that Obama has made. Why not just focus on them, and tell us how you will change them? For example: Romney now says that under Obama, Iran will build nuclear weapons, but in a Romney administration Iran will not. Pure demagoguery, red meat for the ignorant -- short on truth, absent on "hows."
Final thought of the day: Proliferation of anonymous sourcing in newspapers, like,
"according to two people with direct knowledge of the plans who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them publicly." Or, "anonymity, because of the ongoing investigation."
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Jesus, Tebow to Change U.S. Political System
Sat. Jan. 14, 2012:
Today's sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/the-state-of-politics.html
2. "Back to the Robber Barons," a Fri. Jan. 13 NYT editorial
3. The Fri. Jan. 13 premiere of "Moyers & Co."
It's percolating everywhere except among the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority: Disgust with the self-evident consequences of the 2010 Citizens United decision.
A Modest Proposal: The time has come for politicians to declare for self-sacrifice -- Tebow's Jesus-style -- in order to save the election system of the USA's democratic republic.
Starting with the 2016 national elections for President and for the House of Representatives [Senate may be more problematic, because only 1/3 of its seats is up for election every 2 years], each candidate vows to pass critical legislation purging the influence of money in all future election campaigns -- even if this means her/his own defeat in 2016 itself, or after just one term in office.
The law might include:
1. Funding limited to $1.00 required from every citizen who pays federal income tax;
2. Time limit of 3 months for all campaigning;
3. Elections moved to Sunday, so that a much higher % may vote;
3. A $40 dollar fine, for every citizen who does not vote?
5. New debate system, by which each candidate must answer 10 questions, with specific evidence and an instant fact-checking system [like FactCheck.com?], and without evasion
-- 5 questions on the nation's 5 most important domestic needs of the day, and 5 questions on the nation's 5 most urgent foreign policy needs of the day.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels," it has been said. "Pious baloney," too.
For those -- Tea Party folks and multiple sanctimonious candidates come to mind -- who sincerely care about the 1787 U.S. Constitution & the 27 Amendments since then, these steps seem indispensable, for restoring genuine power-sharing in a democratic republic.
Remember, "political" means, Who does the ordinary person obey? At the moment, we are obliged to obey Congressional laws, Executive orders, and U.S. Courts' decisions made by appointed or elected officers who have been bought by interests way bigger than single individual citizens.
If this were corrected, we would have a much better chance of avoiding unnecessary depressions, expenditures, taxes, and wars. Capitalism could coexist with cleaning the planet, maintaining a safety net for the powerless & unlucky, and schooling our children.
Time is running out.
Today's sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/the-state-of-politics.html
2. "Back to the Robber Barons," a Fri. Jan. 13 NYT editorial
3. The Fri. Jan. 13 premiere of "Moyers & Co."
It's percolating everywhere except among the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority: Disgust with the self-evident consequences of the 2010 Citizens United decision.
A Modest Proposal: The time has come for politicians to declare for self-sacrifice -- Tebow's Jesus-style -- in order to save the election system of the USA's democratic republic.
Starting with the 2016 national elections for President and for the House of Representatives [Senate may be more problematic, because only 1/3 of its seats is up for election every 2 years], each candidate vows to pass critical legislation purging the influence of money in all future election campaigns -- even if this means her/his own defeat in 2016 itself, or after just one term in office.
The law might include:
1. Funding limited to $1.00 required from every citizen who pays federal income tax;
2. Time limit of 3 months for all campaigning;
3. Elections moved to Sunday, so that a much higher % may vote;
3. A $40 dollar fine, for every citizen who does not vote?
5. New debate system, by which each candidate must answer 10 questions, with specific evidence and an instant fact-checking system [like FactCheck.com?], and without evasion
-- 5 questions on the nation's 5 most important domestic needs of the day, and 5 questions on the nation's 5 most urgent foreign policy needs of the day.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels," it has been said. "Pious baloney," too.
For those -- Tea Party folks and multiple sanctimonious candidates come to mind -- who sincerely care about the 1787 U.S. Constitution & the 27 Amendments since then, these steps seem indispensable, for restoring genuine power-sharing in a democratic republic.
Remember, "political" means, Who does the ordinary person obey? At the moment, we are obliged to obey Congressional laws, Executive orders, and U.S. Courts' decisions made by appointed or elected officers who have been bought by interests way bigger than single individual citizens.
If this were corrected, we would have a much better chance of avoiding unnecessary depressions, expenditures, taxes, and wars. Capitalism could coexist with cleaning the planet, maintaining a safety net for the powerless & unlucky, and schooling our children.
Time is running out.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Getting More Serious: "Free Press," not "Fluff Press"
Thu. Jan. 12, 2012
Today's assignment:
1. Jan. 11 NYT lead editorial "The Republican Contest,"
2. Any book review of Lawrence Lessig's booklength study, Republic, Lost,
3. The upcoming premier TV showing of "Moyers & Company" [for broadcast in your area, go to BillMoyers.com, and type in your zipcode].
My first two posts, over the last two days, were partly for the purpose of teaching an old retiree how to blog. Their substance was mostly experimental & flip.
Today, time to turn to this blog's longer-term goal: making serious contributions to what the Founding Fathers really wanted in the 1770's & 1780's -- a genuine & enduring democratic republic.
This means, a government with no monarch run by elected representatives -- "republic" -- of an electorate which becomes increasingly more inclusive toward universal suffrage, or "democratic."
Since 1789, the USA's eligible electorate has evolved way beyond the original adult propertied white males to nearly every citizen over age 18. And yet, as eligibility has expanded over 222 years, percentage of actual participation has generally declined.
Most Founding Fathers would be sorely disappointed. By 1776 most Europeans, since roughly Martin Luther's 16th Century, had decided that some form of monarchy was far superior to the regional & tribal chaos of the Middle Ages, and they ridiculed the 1776 Americans' hopes for a democratic republic as unworkable and doomed within a few decades. Our Founding Fathers felt that an essential ingredient of sustaining such a republic was the constant nurturing of an informed & virtuous citizenry. Today, on Jan. 12, 2012, apathy, disintegrating families & communities, poor schooling, and especially a failing "free press," line up as the Usual Suspects. Nothing wrong with "Amazing Race," "American Idol," NFL, Nascar. But all that is for play time. We cannot sacrifice civil time, and much of that needs to be invested in paying attention to an informative rather than a fluffy press.
If we had stayed in the British Empire, we'd at least have the BBC & publically broadcast parliamentary debates where a prime minister has to defend her/his policies with a modicum of evidentiary fact. In contrast, check out our 1/2-hour ABC, CBS, NBC evening news broadcasts every night. For Jan. 11, all 3 networks were done with "hard news" after 15 minutes; after that, there were items like Jodi Kantor's "expose" of Michelle Obama's supposed hard feelings with her job as First Lady. During the same hour, PBS was at least trying to inform, by comparing economists' views of what is the best way to reform the USA taxing system. Google the "Laffer Curve" & Laffer's opponents.
My point is, we shouldn't have to google it, because it should be on the front page of not only the New York Times & Wall Street Journal, and within the first 15 minutes of every TV news show, but in every popular [not just serious] news source. A free press not only can teach -- it must.
What IS a "private equity firm"? Only the 1% know, but it is a free press's job for all of us to know, so that we can judge whether attacks on Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital are fair or not. Instead, we get the "pious baloney" labeled by Newt Gingrich from ALL Democratic & Republican politicians, including him. Radio & TV in the USA encourage pious baloney. Already, the USA is listing dangerously toward an oligarchy of the 1%. Is there any federally elected official who is not in some contributor's pocket?
Not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. To borrow Lawrence Lessig's phrase, the Republic will be lost, if the free press does not do its job, and fast.
Today's assignment:
1. Jan. 11 NYT lead editorial "The Republican Contest,"
2. Any book review of Lawrence Lessig's booklength study, Republic, Lost,
3. The upcoming premier TV showing of "Moyers & Company" [for broadcast in your area, go to BillMoyers.com, and type in your zipcode].
My first two posts, over the last two days, were partly for the purpose of teaching an old retiree how to blog. Their substance was mostly experimental & flip.
Today, time to turn to this blog's longer-term goal: making serious contributions to what the Founding Fathers really wanted in the 1770's & 1780's -- a genuine & enduring democratic republic.
This means, a government with no monarch run by elected representatives -- "republic" -- of an electorate which becomes increasingly more inclusive toward universal suffrage, or "democratic."
Since 1789, the USA's eligible electorate has evolved way beyond the original adult propertied white males to nearly every citizen over age 18. And yet, as eligibility has expanded over 222 years, percentage of actual participation has generally declined.
Most Founding Fathers would be sorely disappointed. By 1776 most Europeans, since roughly Martin Luther's 16th Century, had decided that some form of monarchy was far superior to the regional & tribal chaos of the Middle Ages, and they ridiculed the 1776 Americans' hopes for a democratic republic as unworkable and doomed within a few decades. Our Founding Fathers felt that an essential ingredient of sustaining such a republic was the constant nurturing of an informed & virtuous citizenry. Today, on Jan. 12, 2012, apathy, disintegrating families & communities, poor schooling, and especially a failing "free press," line up as the Usual Suspects. Nothing wrong with "Amazing Race," "American Idol," NFL, Nascar. But all that is for play time. We cannot sacrifice civil time, and much of that needs to be invested in paying attention to an informative rather than a fluffy press.
If we had stayed in the British Empire, we'd at least have the BBC & publically broadcast parliamentary debates where a prime minister has to defend her/his policies with a modicum of evidentiary fact. In contrast, check out our 1/2-hour ABC, CBS, NBC evening news broadcasts every night. For Jan. 11, all 3 networks were done with "hard news" after 15 minutes; after that, there were items like Jodi Kantor's "expose" of Michelle Obama's supposed hard feelings with her job as First Lady. During the same hour, PBS was at least trying to inform, by comparing economists' views of what is the best way to reform the USA taxing system. Google the "Laffer Curve" & Laffer's opponents.
My point is, we shouldn't have to google it, because it should be on the front page of not only the New York Times & Wall Street Journal, and within the first 15 minutes of every TV news show, but in every popular [not just serious] news source. A free press not only can teach -- it must.
What IS a "private equity firm"? Only the 1% know, but it is a free press's job for all of us to know, so that we can judge whether attacks on Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital are fair or not. Instead, we get the "pious baloney" labeled by Newt Gingrich from ALL Democratic & Republican politicians, including him. Radio & TV in the USA encourage pious baloney. Already, the USA is listing dangerously toward an oligarchy of the 1%. Is there any federally elected official who is not in some contributor's pocket?
Not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. To borrow Lawrence Lessig's phrase, the Republic will be lost, if the free press does not do its job, and fast.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Buddy Knox & the Rhythm Orchids, "Party Doll"
Wed. Jan. 11, 2012:
The nation holds its breath:
Now, the Palmetto State may be the last chance to stop Romney's massive ground game.
If not, the party of Lincoln will find itself committed to what Abe himself called -- and in my home town of Rockford, Illinois! -- the 2nd "twin relic of barbarism" [the 1st being slavery] back in 1856.
Required reading from today's NYT:
Maureen Dowd, "A Perfect Doll."
Watch for lots of negative ads fed by Gingrich & Perry superpacs. Have fun calculating when the GOP "Establishment" slaps the Gag Rule on these "out-of-bounds" [Limbaugh's words] slurs of the GOP's anointed "Dog in the Hunt" [so to speak].
The nation holds its breath:
Now, the Palmetto State may be the last chance to stop Romney's massive ground game.
If not, the party of Lincoln will find itself committed to what Abe himself called -- and in my home town of Rockford, Illinois! -- the 2nd "twin relic of barbarism" [the 1st being slavery] back in 1856.
Required reading from today's NYT:
Maureen Dowd, "A Perfect Doll."
Watch for lots of negative ads fed by Gingrich & Perry superpacs. Have fun calculating when the GOP "Establishment" slaps the Gag Rule on these "out-of-bounds" [Limbaugh's words] slurs of the GOP's anointed "Dog in the Hunt" [so to speak].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)