Of all the reading I've done on the issue, this is the most succinct explanation I've come across for how the economy went to hell:
While the housing bubble was still inflating, lenders were making lots of money issuing mortgages to anyone who walked in the door; investment banks were making even more money repackaging those mortgages into shiny new securities; and money managers who booked big paper profits by buying those securities with borrowed funds looked like geniuses, and were paid accordingly.
Read the whole thing here. Read some ideas about what to do about it here.
Showing posts with label Brief Forays Into The Serious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brief Forays Into The Serious. Show all posts
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
You Might Want To Avoid This One
It's late - almost 1:30, and I've been up for over 20 hours. I started the day in a hotel a few miles south of Midway airport, went to Philadelphia and back, and then returned to Iowa. My spiritual journey was much harder, much longer. I started the day once again a father with two sons (having picked up Andrew at Midway last night) and end the day as a father with no sons. That's not entirely true I guess; I have sons, they are just 1,000 miles away from me.
That's why I'm not in bed yet, tired as I am. I know as soon as I shut the last lights off and lie down, it's all going to come crashing in on me. There were moments of tears throughout the afternoon after I left E, but I was able to fight them off. I know I won't now. I'll just have to accept them, accept that my life is no longer as bright as it was and won't be again for sometime, but I'm not ready for that yet.
There is an unfairness about it to me. It's unfair that there are parents who don't love their children, who don't want their children, who would be happy to be in my position. It's unfair that, at least to me, the bulk of the responsibility for our family, my family, being in this position lies elsewhere, but the bulk of the pain lies with me.
But the dogs are here, and though they sense my sadness, and though they know that E is not here, they will do what they can to keep me happy. I can devote my spare time more to myself, if not all to myself, and my expenses are cut drastically. These things don't add up to what I lost, but they will have to do.
That's why I'm not in bed yet, tired as I am. I know as soon as I shut the last lights off and lie down, it's all going to come crashing in on me. There were moments of tears throughout the afternoon after I left E, but I was able to fight them off. I know I won't now. I'll just have to accept them, accept that my life is no longer as bright as it was and won't be again for sometime, but I'm not ready for that yet.
There is an unfairness about it to me. It's unfair that there are parents who don't love their children, who don't want their children, who would be happy to be in my position. It's unfair that, at least to me, the bulk of the responsibility for our family, my family, being in this position lies elsewhere, but the bulk of the pain lies with me.
But the dogs are here, and though they sense my sadness, and though they know that E is not here, they will do what they can to keep me happy. I can devote my spare time more to myself, if not all to myself, and my expenses are cut drastically. These things don't add up to what I lost, but they will have to do.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
An Eventful Week Part II
The first sign that there might be trouble came Thursday afternoon, when reports started circulating that the Iowa Department of Transportation planned on closing I-80 at the Atalissa and Tipton exits Friday night at 7:00 pm. At that point I realized I would probably need to be moving out Friday afternoon instead of Saturday morning. Still, I could leave home as late as 5:00 in the afternoon and still clear those exits by 7:00 pm. My mother suggested that I take the boys right then and go down and stay with an aunt and uncle on the east side of the closure. I briefly considered it, but decided to wait.
I woke up Friday morning to discover that the DOT had closed I-80 earlier than expected. Indeed, they jumped the closure from Friday evening to late Thursday. I started looking at maps, trying to figure out how to go east. It seemed pretty simple. Head up to Cedar Rapids, then take Highway 30 east to Tipton, then back south to I-80. I needed to make arrangements to board the dogs, and started making calls. By the time I found a place to board them, not only was Highway 30 closed, but pretty much every bridge and road north of I-80 that went east was closed. On top of that, I-380 in Cedar Rapids was one-lane only, and there was talk that both I-380 and Highway 965 were about to be closed between I-80 and Cedar Rapids. My only option to the north was heading west, then heading north to Highway 20, then east to Dubuque, then south to I-80, then on to Chicago. Not a very attractive path.
So I started looking south. Highway 92 was already closed going east, but that still left Highway 6 and Highway 22. I got the boys dressed, then set off for Victor where I was boarding the dogs. By the time I got home, less than an hour later, Highway 6 was closed. Highway 22 was still open, though. If that closed, my only option would be driving down to Mt. Pleasant, taking Highway 34 across the river at Burlington and over to Galesburg, and then taking I-70 up to I-80.
We set off about 2:00. Before we leave I double-check to make sure Highway 22 is still open. It is. By the time we reach Highway 22, about 40 minutes later, it’s closed. We set off for Mt. Pleasant, hoping Highway 34 is still open. It is, and the rest of the trip is uneventful, except of course for hitting I-55 into Chicago right about 6:00 p.m., just when traffic starts to go back into the city. It took about an hour to travel the 30-some miles between I-80 and the Harlem exit, and then another 30 minutes or so to get to the hotel.
The next day was busy – turn in the first rental car, get a new rental car, escort Drew to his flight, go to the BMW dealership and take care of things with the old car, then drive back home following the same route. We dropped the rental off at Budget, got a lift home from a friend (thanks Brian!), then settled in and watched flood coverage.
So that was my week. It cost me a car, it cost me over a $1,000 out of pocket (rental car, hotel, gas, diagnosis of car problems, towing fee), and I still consider myself fortunate compared to the many, many people in the area who lost a lot more. A friend, someone I’ve worked with for close to a decade, owns a house in one of the worst-affected areas of Iowa City. I spent an afternoon helping him clean-up - tearing out carpet, tearing down drywall, hauling out trash. It was horrible to see the damage caused by the flood up close. And he was one of the lucky ones. He was about four rows of houses away from the river, and though he is looking at tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages, he could conceivably rebuild if he needs to do so. There are many others in far worse shape. I got to leave it behind at the end of the day, but those affected can never leave it behind. It’s always with them.
I woke up Friday morning to discover that the DOT had closed I-80 earlier than expected. Indeed, they jumped the closure from Friday evening to late Thursday. I started looking at maps, trying to figure out how to go east. It seemed pretty simple. Head up to Cedar Rapids, then take Highway 30 east to Tipton, then back south to I-80. I needed to make arrangements to board the dogs, and started making calls. By the time I found a place to board them, not only was Highway 30 closed, but pretty much every bridge and road north of I-80 that went east was closed. On top of that, I-380 in Cedar Rapids was one-lane only, and there was talk that both I-380 and Highway 965 were about to be closed between I-80 and Cedar Rapids. My only option to the north was heading west, then heading north to Highway 20, then east to Dubuque, then south to I-80, then on to Chicago. Not a very attractive path.
So I started looking south. Highway 92 was already closed going east, but that still left Highway 6 and Highway 22. I got the boys dressed, then set off for Victor where I was boarding the dogs. By the time I got home, less than an hour later, Highway 6 was closed. Highway 22 was still open, though. If that closed, my only option would be driving down to Mt. Pleasant, taking Highway 34 across the river at Burlington and over to Galesburg, and then taking I-70 up to I-80.
We set off about 2:00. Before we leave I double-check to make sure Highway 22 is still open. It is. By the time we reach Highway 22, about 40 minutes later, it’s closed. We set off for Mt. Pleasant, hoping Highway 34 is still open. It is, and the rest of the trip is uneventful, except of course for hitting I-55 into Chicago right about 6:00 p.m., just when traffic starts to go back into the city. It took about an hour to travel the 30-some miles between I-80 and the Harlem exit, and then another 30 minutes or so to get to the hotel.
The next day was busy – turn in the first rental car, get a new rental car, escort Drew to his flight, go to the BMW dealership and take care of things with the old car, then drive back home following the same route. We dropped the rental off at Budget, got a lift home from a friend (thanks Brian!), then settled in and watched flood coverage.
So that was my week. It cost me a car, it cost me over a $1,000 out of pocket (rental car, hotel, gas, diagnosis of car problems, towing fee), and I still consider myself fortunate compared to the many, many people in the area who lost a lot more. A friend, someone I’ve worked with for close to a decade, owns a house in one of the worst-affected areas of Iowa City. I spent an afternoon helping him clean-up - tearing out carpet, tearing down drywall, hauling out trash. It was horrible to see the damage caused by the flood up close. And he was one of the lucky ones. He was about four rows of houses away from the river, and though he is looking at tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages, he could conceivably rebuild if he needs to do so. There are many others in far worse shape. I got to leave it behind at the end of the day, but those affected can never leave it behind. It’s always with them.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Dunkin Donuts, K-Mart, And The Appropriate Response
Jolene briefly touches on the stupidest story from last week, the successful attempt by the right-wing fringe to save America by making Rachel Ray change her clothing accessories. For those that missed it, Dunkin Donuts (the clear favorite to win the 2008 Award for Corporate Cowardice) had a promotional photo with Rachel Ray wearing what some claimed was a keffiyeh (the traditional scarf worn in Middle-Eastern cultures). This was interpreted to be a shot across the bow of patriotic Amurricins everywhere, one of our biggest corporate shills wearing the Mooslim scarf of terror. Nevermind that it contained floral patterns and colors seldom found in true keffiyehs; nevermind you can see Lower Upper Class women wearing them almost anywhere you go in this country. It was a horrible thing for her to do at a time when we are at war with all of the Middle East, including those Israelis who don't agree with us, and the bold members of the lunatic fringe, led by wild-eyed howler monkey Michelle Malkin, stood up, screamed, and got Dunkin Donuts to pull the ad.
(Jolene links to this story in the Boston Glode. A funnier version of the issue can be found, as per usual, at Sadly, No!, where you can find an even funnier post about the right-wing furry who commissions comic art of himself as a skunk fucking underage skunks who was among those leading the charge that Obama lied about his great-uncle's military service during WWII. No, really. I'm not making that up.)
Last week also saw a very interesting article from Rick Perlstein, author of the new book Nixonland, a history of the conservative movement in the 70s. Perlstein talks about how many conservative commentators have asked him why he's the only liberal to treat the conservative movement seriously:
First question: "It's my general sense that liberal or popular historians don't seem to be very interested in conservative history and ideology. Why are you?" In other words: why is the left--except for Perlstein!--so condescending that they refuse to take the right seriously.
Perlstein then details how not only are many on the left taking the conservative movement seriously, but have actually used that movement as a model for today's liberal movement. He offers plenty of examples of liberals taking conservatives seriously. Others in the left blogosphere chime in, providing further examples.
Why do I mention these two things together? Because, while it is important to respect elements of the conservative movement, it is hard, if not impossible, to take seriously people worried about Rachel Ray starting a jihad. That is, certain opinions not only call up condescension, they demand it.
Here's an example closer to home. If you spend any time at all reading the Press-Citizen's online comment pages, you'll find a lot of barely disguised racism. Sure, it's covered in code words applicable only to Iowa City, words like "Broadway Apartments" and "Chicago transplants". Now, I've been in the area for over 30 years now, and while Iowa City isn't the "whiteville" it once was, it's a long, long way from being overrun by minorities like some at the Press-Citizen message boards claim. But when you see someone posting about how they feel unsafe going to K-Mart at any time of day because of the number of "those people" you see there, you don't know how to react. On the one hand, you want to take the concerns seriously, because this is obviously someone expressing fears they truly feel. On the other hand, it's such an idiotic fear that it's hard to take someone who would express it seriously. I go in that K-Mart every now and then on one of my area toy quests, and I've never felt the least bit threatened.
There are no easy answers, at least none I see. It almost seems that making fun of a person who has that fear, or who fears a keffiyeh, might have a better chance of reaching them, or at least reaching someone who could possibly be swayed by them, then trying a reasoned argument. The reasoned argument is sure to fall on deaf ears. Maybe mockery won't.
(Jolene links to this story in the Boston Glode. A funnier version of the issue can be found, as per usual, at Sadly, No!, where you can find an even funnier post about the right-wing furry who commissions comic art of himself as a skunk fucking underage skunks who was among those leading the charge that Obama lied about his great-uncle's military service during WWII. No, really. I'm not making that up.)
Last week also saw a very interesting article from Rick Perlstein, author of the new book Nixonland, a history of the conservative movement in the 70s. Perlstein talks about how many conservative commentators have asked him why he's the only liberal to treat the conservative movement seriously:
First question: "It's my general sense that liberal or popular historians don't seem to be very interested in conservative history and ideology. Why are you?" In other words: why is the left--except for Perlstein!--so condescending that they refuse to take the right seriously.
Perlstein then details how not only are many on the left taking the conservative movement seriously, but have actually used that movement as a model for today's liberal movement. He offers plenty of examples of liberals taking conservatives seriously. Others in the left blogosphere chime in, providing further examples.
Why do I mention these two things together? Because, while it is important to respect elements of the conservative movement, it is hard, if not impossible, to take seriously people worried about Rachel Ray starting a jihad. That is, certain opinions not only call up condescension, they demand it.
Here's an example closer to home. If you spend any time at all reading the Press-Citizen's online comment pages, you'll find a lot of barely disguised racism. Sure, it's covered in code words applicable only to Iowa City, words like "Broadway Apartments" and "Chicago transplants". Now, I've been in the area for over 30 years now, and while Iowa City isn't the "whiteville" it once was, it's a long, long way from being overrun by minorities like some at the Press-Citizen message boards claim. But when you see someone posting about how they feel unsafe going to K-Mart at any time of day because of the number of "those people" you see there, you don't know how to react. On the one hand, you want to take the concerns seriously, because this is obviously someone expressing fears they truly feel. On the other hand, it's such an idiotic fear that it's hard to take someone who would express it seriously. I go in that K-Mart every now and then on one of my area toy quests, and I've never felt the least bit threatened.
There are no easy answers, at least none I see. It almost seems that making fun of a person who has that fear, or who fears a keffiyeh, might have a better chance of reaching them, or at least reaching someone who could possibly be swayed by them, then trying a reasoned argument. The reasoned argument is sure to fall on deaf ears. Maybe mockery won't.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Posting
I am constantly thinking of posts. In fact, I mentally write far more posts than I actually, you know, post. I’ll completely create a post in my head, then never bother to write it down and post it. Not sure why that is – perhaps I’m just bored with the post by the time I get to physically writing it. I think that’s why the short posts show up more often than the long ones. I’ve got about a third of a post on the recent Englert brouhaha written – hell, I actually spent time researching the effectiveness and justification of TIF districts – just sitting as a draft. There’s also a post that’s been brewing about why Obama, or more specifically, Obama supporters, scare the hell out of me. I hope to get some of these written and posted in the next few days. Til then – kid stories and innuendo (though not in the same posts)!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Because Really, What This Story Needed Was More Bat-Shit Crazy People
I haven't written about this because it really hit me hard. The fact that one of the kids was Andrew's age and named Ethan is what got to me. So those of you who aren't from here haven't heard about it. But this, about the fine Rev. Phelps and the plans for the WBC to come protest at the funeral, made me break my silence.
See, you out-of-staters might not know it, but God apparently hates Iowa. First, there was the court that allowed gay couples to get married. Then, there was the state law prohibiting protests within 500 yards of a funeral. Finally, there is the fact that Iowa City is among the gay-friendliest cities in America.
(Really, we are. City law states that if a gay person asks us to perform a sex act with them, we have to do it. That's how gay-friendly we are!)
So God hates Iowa, and to demonstrate that hate, God - and I'm quoting here - "sent the shooter" as punishment for Iowa's sins. (Note: As anyone who can read could tell you, there was no shooter, no shots, and no shooting victims. Facts are funny things.)
Now, I don't want to get into the strangeness of someone professing to be a Christian apparently never having heard of the New Testament God (aka the friendly God). Nor do I want to get into the strangeness of God sending a hitman to kill innocent children as young as three. I mean, if God really was trying to send a message, especially a message about the evils of homosexuality, you'd think he send a hitman to take out some gay people. And not take them out in the way that Iowa City city law requires us to take out gay people - no, in the killing way of taking out people.
To me, if you want to use the logic that God targets the innocent to drive home how sinful we Iowans are to the ultimate extreme, you realize that God shouldn't just be targeting the innocent - God should be targeting those who actively protest against homosexuality. That would really drive home how angry God was at us. So, until someone takes out the entire Phelps family (again, not the good way of taking out), I'm going to assume that God isn't sending hitmen to kill Iowa's innocents.
Of course, the notion that Steve Sueppel was a hitman for God makes as much sense as any other theory people have put forward for why he did what he did. Let me reiterate what I said about the Virginia Tech shootings - as much as we want to see a reason, we won't. To quote the Rats of Boomtown, we can see no reasons because there are no reasons. The silicon chip inside his head got switched to overload and Sueppel went totally bat-shit crazy. It wasn't because of his legal problems, it wasn't because he didn't want his family to deal with the shame, it wasn't because of the harshness of the legal system - it's because he went crazy. We'll never know why - he made sure of that himself - but it doesn't matter why. All that matters is that he went nuts, two adults and four children are dead, and the Desperate Attention Whores from Kansas are coming to town.
In other words, no happy endings here.
See, you out-of-staters might not know it, but God apparently hates Iowa. First, there was the court that allowed gay couples to get married. Then, there was the state law prohibiting protests within 500 yards of a funeral. Finally, there is the fact that Iowa City is among the gay-friendliest cities in America.
(Really, we are. City law states that if a gay person asks us to perform a sex act with them, we have to do it. That's how gay-friendly we are!)
So God hates Iowa, and to demonstrate that hate, God - and I'm quoting here - "sent the shooter" as punishment for Iowa's sins. (Note: As anyone who can read could tell you, there was no shooter, no shots, and no shooting victims. Facts are funny things.)
Now, I don't want to get into the strangeness of someone professing to be a Christian apparently never having heard of the New Testament God (aka the friendly God). Nor do I want to get into the strangeness of God sending a hitman to kill innocent children as young as three. I mean, if God really was trying to send a message, especially a message about the evils of homosexuality, you'd think he send a hitman to take out some gay people. And not take them out in the way that Iowa City city law requires us to take out gay people - no, in the killing way of taking out people.
To me, if you want to use the logic that God targets the innocent to drive home how sinful we Iowans are to the ultimate extreme, you realize that God shouldn't just be targeting the innocent - God should be targeting those who actively protest against homosexuality. That would really drive home how angry God was at us. So, until someone takes out the entire Phelps family (again, not the good way of taking out), I'm going to assume that God isn't sending hitmen to kill Iowa's innocents.
Of course, the notion that Steve Sueppel was a hitman for God makes as much sense as any other theory people have put forward for why he did what he did. Let me reiterate what I said about the Virginia Tech shootings - as much as we want to see a reason, we won't. To quote the Rats of Boomtown, we can see no reasons because there are no reasons. The silicon chip inside his head got switched to overload and Sueppel went totally bat-shit crazy. It wasn't because of his legal problems, it wasn't because he didn't want his family to deal with the shame, it wasn't because of the harshness of the legal system - it's because he went crazy. We'll never know why - he made sure of that himself - but it doesn't matter why. All that matters is that he went nuts, two adults and four children are dead, and the Desperate Attention Whores from Kansas are coming to town.
In other words, no happy endings here.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
New Review
I've got a new review up at the Iowa City Theatre Blog - an ICCT show that's well worth seeing. Well, you only have today (Sunday) left to see it, so chances are you won't. But it was really good.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Deep Thought For The Day
It's tough to think about what you have when all you can focus on is what you've lost.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The People Have Spoken - The Bastards
The title of this post is one of my favorite political quotes. It was supposedly uttered by the losing candidate in a California state senate primary. It's probably the most honestly-felt post-election speech ever spoken.
It amazes me how, right after your candidate loses, your opinion of the winning candidate goes down a little. I dislike Obama a lot more right now than I did on caucus night. I think at that point I still hoped Edwards would win it. I'm not sure why - maybe I thought there would be some state-wide mass epiphanic moment where tens of thousands of caucus-goers suddenly slapped their foreheads with their palms and said "I can't believe I'm buying this crap!" Needless to say, that didn't happen.
As I said in my pre-caucus post, the older I get, the more I self-identify as a progressive. Edwards remains the only major candidate in the race pushing a progressive agenda. But I also self-identify as someone who is pretty sophisticated politically. I've worked for campaigns, I've been a member of the county central Democratic committee, I've been a precinct chair (in which capacity I ran several caucuses), and I've been a county and state convention delegate. This isn't my first time at the rodeo.
As a result, words like "hope" and "change" are meaningless to me unless there is something underneath them that demonstrates that what the candidate is offering is truly "change", truly a cause for "hope". And as much as Obama slings around the words "change" and "hope", what's underneath his words is nothing but failed retread positions, luke-warm half-measures, and Republican talking points.
Obama speaks of change, but he doesn't really offer change on a substantive level. His language and his delivery are designed to make hearts flutter, but all he offers is the same failed crap centrist Democrats have been offering for the past decade. To the extent that anything he says and proposes is actually progressive, it's because Edwards has forced Obama (as he forced Clinton) to say and propose things that are progressive.
Let's get specific. Look at health care. Obama's plan doesn't go as far towards ensuring universal coverage as the Edwards plan or even the Clinton plan. Yes, Edwards and Clinton mandate universal coverage, but they also include subsidies to help low-income families purchase insurance (as does Obama), and the level of subsidies proposed by Edwards and Clinton are significantly higher than the level of subsidies proposed by Obama. (For more, see Krugman here.) I'm going to pull over Krugman's conclusion because, well, he's Krugman, and a far better writer and a far better economic thinker than I'm ever going to be.
Mr. Obama’s health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it’s infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.
That, to me, is the biggest problem. Not that the Obama healthcare plan isn't as good as the Edwards plan or the Clinton plan, but that rather than debate the substance of the approaches, Obama chose to attack Edwards and Clinton with Republican anti-universal health care talking points.
But wait! There's more!
I’d add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.
I'd say the right-wing pandering is a result of that "every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less" thing. Because it isn't just a smattering of right-wing pandering - it's a whole host of right-wing pandering. There's the "Social Security is in crisis and needs fixing" statements (it isn't and it doesn't), the diss of trial lawyers, the diss of Gore and Kerry, and perhaps most telling, the Donnie McClurkin incident, something he has never adequately explained. (Probably because the explanation would have to be "I was falling way behind in South Carolina, and the only way I could stop the bleeding was to quietly play the gay-bashing card.")
I understand why Obama is running to the right of Clinton and Edwards. He has to - he has no chance of winning if he comes across as the most radical of the candidates. Sadly, the state of the racial dialogue in this country still hasn't advanced far enough to allow Obama to come across as an angry candidate. A sense of anger would sway me most to his side, but I know it would drive a lot more people away. So I get that. I do.
But I cannot support a candidate based on the candidate's personality alone. I keep coming back to an Atrios post from early December. It's brief - I'll use it in it's entirety:
Shorter Candidates
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
That, to me, captures the three perfectly. The Obama argument seems to be that the force of his personality alone will be enough to bring about change. And I'm not discounting the value that force of personality can have. But there are limits to what force of personality can accomplish.
JFK was as powerful a personality as any U.S. President. But was JFK actually an effective President? Most of the major pieces of social legislation that were passed in the 60s passed under LBJ, not JFK. Yes, many of them were proposed by JFK. But they stalled in Congress, and didn't get passed until LBJ, an experienced Senate trader, took office.
Gridlock is a big buzzword for a lot of people. Obama is supposedly going to break gridlock by using the force of his personality to reach out to Republicans. But the problem isn't that Democrats haven't tried reaching out to Republicans - hell, the current Senate and House majority leaders have bent over backwards to Republicans.
Harry Reid has gone so far as to agree not to bring any legislation to the Senate floor unless there are 60 votes in favor of the legislation. Think about that. The constitution requires a simple majority for passage of most legislation, but Reid has agreed not to bring something to the floor unless it already has a filibuster proof majority. The Republicans in the Senate not only haven't had to filibuster to block legislation - they haven't even had to threaten to filibuster. That's not reaching out to Republicans, that's dropping your pants and bending over for Republicans.
We have gridlock because one party, the Republicans, wants gridlock. We have gridlock because one party, the Republicans, agree with Bush advisor Grover Norquist that bipartisanship is another name for date rape. We have gridlock becasue the Republicans know they are out of ideas of their own, and just want to prevent the Democrats from enacting any of their ideas. Obama's personality will not change any of that. The only way to break the current gridlock is to elect more Democrats, especially a Democratic President who knows we have to fight to make things happen.
We don't need another centrist Democrat. We don't need another middle-of-the-road Democrat. We need to recognize the truth of what Jim Hightower once said in another of my favorite political quotes - "The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
Because we are going to have to fight. This coming election is going to be the ugliest Presidential election in my lifetime. This is the last gasp of the current Republican party, and they are going to do whatever they can, to whomever they have to, to hold onto the Presidency. The Republicans know they can't win on the merits, so they are going to attempt to absolutely destroy as a person whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be.
(Brief digression. You hate to give any credence to the lunatic fringers who think Bush/Cheney will stage a coup to remain President, but is it really so hard to think a coup is something the current administration would reject out of hand? Indeed, the main reason I think a coup unlikely is not that the administration wouldn't attempt it, it's that the U.S. military establishment is going to be as happy to see the Bush presidency end as the majority of the country will be. You can't pull off a coup, at least not one that lasts more than a day, if the military doesn't support it.)
You know, it would be nice if we could all sit around the campfire, hold hands, sing Kum-ba-yah, and bring about change. It would also be nice if the lottery ticket I purchased this afternoon wins tonight. But the odds of either of those things happening are pretty much the same: slim and none, and slim just left town. We are going to have a bloody, vicious fight on our hands, and I don't know that Obama is up for it.
Like I said previously, if Obama is the nominee, he has my vote and not in some "I guess I can hold my nose and vote for him" kind of way. He'll have my enthusiastic support. But I'm not ready to make nice right now, and I wish like hell he felt the same way.
And with that, let's close with the Dixie Chicks.
It amazes me how, right after your candidate loses, your opinion of the winning candidate goes down a little. I dislike Obama a lot more right now than I did on caucus night. I think at that point I still hoped Edwards would win it. I'm not sure why - maybe I thought there would be some state-wide mass epiphanic moment where tens of thousands of caucus-goers suddenly slapped their foreheads with their palms and said "I can't believe I'm buying this crap!" Needless to say, that didn't happen.
As I said in my pre-caucus post, the older I get, the more I self-identify as a progressive. Edwards remains the only major candidate in the race pushing a progressive agenda. But I also self-identify as someone who is pretty sophisticated politically. I've worked for campaigns, I've been a member of the county central Democratic committee, I've been a precinct chair (in which capacity I ran several caucuses), and I've been a county and state convention delegate. This isn't my first time at the rodeo.
As a result, words like "hope" and "change" are meaningless to me unless there is something underneath them that demonstrates that what the candidate is offering is truly "change", truly a cause for "hope". And as much as Obama slings around the words "change" and "hope", what's underneath his words is nothing but failed retread positions, luke-warm half-measures, and Republican talking points.
Obama speaks of change, but he doesn't really offer change on a substantive level. His language and his delivery are designed to make hearts flutter, but all he offers is the same failed crap centrist Democrats have been offering for the past decade. To the extent that anything he says and proposes is actually progressive, it's because Edwards has forced Obama (as he forced Clinton) to say and propose things that are progressive.
Let's get specific. Look at health care. Obama's plan doesn't go as far towards ensuring universal coverage as the Edwards plan or even the Clinton plan. Yes, Edwards and Clinton mandate universal coverage, but they also include subsidies to help low-income families purchase insurance (as does Obama), and the level of subsidies proposed by Edwards and Clinton are significantly higher than the level of subsidies proposed by Obama. (For more, see Krugman here.) I'm going to pull over Krugman's conclusion because, well, he's Krugman, and a far better writer and a far better economic thinker than I'm ever going to be.
Mr. Obama’s health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it’s infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.
That, to me, is the biggest problem. Not that the Obama healthcare plan isn't as good as the Edwards plan or the Clinton plan, but that rather than debate the substance of the approaches, Obama chose to attack Edwards and Clinton with Republican anti-universal health care talking points.
But wait! There's more!
I’d add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.
I'd say the right-wing pandering is a result of that "every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less" thing. Because it isn't just a smattering of right-wing pandering - it's a whole host of right-wing pandering. There's the "Social Security is in crisis and needs fixing" statements (it isn't and it doesn't), the diss of trial lawyers, the diss of Gore and Kerry, and perhaps most telling, the Donnie McClurkin incident, something he has never adequately explained. (Probably because the explanation would have to be "I was falling way behind in South Carolina, and the only way I could stop the bleeding was to quietly play the gay-bashing card.")
I understand why Obama is running to the right of Clinton and Edwards. He has to - he has no chance of winning if he comes across as the most radical of the candidates. Sadly, the state of the racial dialogue in this country still hasn't advanced far enough to allow Obama to come across as an angry candidate. A sense of anger would sway me most to his side, but I know it would drive a lot more people away. So I get that. I do.
But I cannot support a candidate based on the candidate's personality alone. I keep coming back to an Atrios post from early December. It's brief - I'll use it in it's entirety:
Shorter Candidates
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
That, to me, captures the three perfectly. The Obama argument seems to be that the force of his personality alone will be enough to bring about change. And I'm not discounting the value that force of personality can have. But there are limits to what force of personality can accomplish.
JFK was as powerful a personality as any U.S. President. But was JFK actually an effective President? Most of the major pieces of social legislation that were passed in the 60s passed under LBJ, not JFK. Yes, many of them were proposed by JFK. But they stalled in Congress, and didn't get passed until LBJ, an experienced Senate trader, took office.
Gridlock is a big buzzword for a lot of people. Obama is supposedly going to break gridlock by using the force of his personality to reach out to Republicans. But the problem isn't that Democrats haven't tried reaching out to Republicans - hell, the current Senate and House majority leaders have bent over backwards to Republicans.
Harry Reid has gone so far as to agree not to bring any legislation to the Senate floor unless there are 60 votes in favor of the legislation. Think about that. The constitution requires a simple majority for passage of most legislation, but Reid has agreed not to bring something to the floor unless it already has a filibuster proof majority. The Republicans in the Senate not only haven't had to filibuster to block legislation - they haven't even had to threaten to filibuster. That's not reaching out to Republicans, that's dropping your pants and bending over for Republicans.
We have gridlock because one party, the Republicans, wants gridlock. We have gridlock because one party, the Republicans, agree with Bush advisor Grover Norquist that bipartisanship is another name for date rape. We have gridlock becasue the Republicans know they are out of ideas of their own, and just want to prevent the Democrats from enacting any of their ideas. Obama's personality will not change any of that. The only way to break the current gridlock is to elect more Democrats, especially a Democratic President who knows we have to fight to make things happen.
We don't need another centrist Democrat. We don't need another middle-of-the-road Democrat. We need to recognize the truth of what Jim Hightower once said in another of my favorite political quotes - "The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
Because we are going to have to fight. This coming election is going to be the ugliest Presidential election in my lifetime. This is the last gasp of the current Republican party, and they are going to do whatever they can, to whomever they have to, to hold onto the Presidency. The Republicans know they can't win on the merits, so they are going to attempt to absolutely destroy as a person whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be.
(Brief digression. You hate to give any credence to the lunatic fringers who think Bush/Cheney will stage a coup to remain President, but is it really so hard to think a coup is something the current administration would reject out of hand? Indeed, the main reason I think a coup unlikely is not that the administration wouldn't attempt it, it's that the U.S. military establishment is going to be as happy to see the Bush presidency end as the majority of the country will be. You can't pull off a coup, at least not one that lasts more than a day, if the military doesn't support it.)
You know, it would be nice if we could all sit around the campfire, hold hands, sing Kum-ba-yah, and bring about change. It would also be nice if the lottery ticket I purchased this afternoon wins tonight. But the odds of either of those things happening are pretty much the same: slim and none, and slim just left town. We are going to have a bloody, vicious fight on our hands, and I don't know that Obama is up for it.
Like I said previously, if Obama is the nominee, he has my vote and not in some "I guess I can hold my nose and vote for him" kind of way. He'll have my enthusiastic support. But I'm not ready to make nice right now, and I wish like hell he felt the same way.
And with that, let's close with the Dixie Chicks.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
This
Is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long, long time. What a great parody ad.
What? This is real? Seriously?
What? This is real? Seriously?
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
The Announcement You've All Been Waiting For
Barring Al Gore jumping into the race sometime in the next 22 hours, I'll be caucusing tomorrow evening for John Edwards. (Mitt, I could be per$uaded to caucu$ for you.)
It's a fairly easy decision for me. The older I get, the more I self-identify as progressive, and Edwards is the only one of the top three candidates who is pushing a progressive agenda. As to the other main two, Obama very obviously crafts his message to appeal to progressives, but a close inspection reveals that not only is his agenda not progressive, it actually incorporates many Republican talking points. (Not to mention the cult of personality that is developing around him.) Clinton is too much of the consummate inside politician for my tastes, not to mention that a Clinton win would mean we had at least twenty-four years where our President had one of two last names. There's something about that fact that grates on me. Oh, I gladly vote for either in the general if they are the nominee. But right now, I can side with the person I most want. So Edwards it is.
It's a fairly easy decision for me. The older I get, the more I self-identify as progressive, and Edwards is the only one of the top three candidates who is pushing a progressive agenda. As to the other main two, Obama very obviously crafts his message to appeal to progressives, but a close inspection reveals that not only is his agenda not progressive, it actually incorporates many Republican talking points. (Not to mention the cult of personality that is developing around him.) Clinton is too much of the consummate inside politician for my tastes, not to mention that a Clinton win would mean we had at least twenty-four years where our President had one of two last names. There's something about that fact that grates on me. Oh, I gladly vote for either in the general if they are the nominee. But right now, I can side with the person I most want. So Edwards it is.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Steve Gilliard, RIP
I don't post about politics as much as I used to, for a couple of reasons. First off, I no longer feel like my viewpoint is being ignored. Hell, if polls are to be believed, most of my opinions are shared by the vast majority of people in the country right now. Secondly, there are many people writing about politics doing a much better job of it than I, or at least expressing the opinions I have better than I think I could. One of those people was Steve Gilliard, operator of the News Blog, the only blog where I ever contributed money. Well, after a longish illness, he passed away on Saturday. His was a wonderful voice, and I am among the many who will miss it.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Excuse Me
Pardon me if I step on some toes.
Yesterday, some members of the sports blogosphere decided to change the blog highlights to the colors of Virginia Tech. They did this, so they said, to honor the dead and to show support for the living. They did this to proclaim, as one blog said, that while they may have gone to different colleges, for yesterday, they were Hokies.
Uhm, no.
Now, I'm not feeling all that fond of the sports blogosphere lately anyway. There's only so much overt homophobia, implicit misogyny, and implied racism one intelligent adult can take. But this particular gesture struck me as even more, well, crass than the sports blogosphere usually is. And believe me, that's awfully crass.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing but sympathy for those who were directly or indirectly affected by Monday's events. But the 32 people murdered on Monday weren't the only people murdered last week. They weren't the only people who died last week. They weren't the only victims of a horrendous act last week. Further, the others who died last week were no less worthy of being honored, their families no less in need of support, then those at Virginia Tech. So where's the show of solidarity for those folks? Where's the proud proclamations on their behalf?
That's why I find the gesture so crass. When your only connection is tangential at best - "Hey! I'm in college too!" or "Hey! I'm a human being too!" - it's not about supporting or honoring. It's about co-opting the grief of others to show how wonderful you yourself are. It's about proclaiming to the world that "I am a good, kind, caring person." It's self-serving, not supportive, and it's offensive.
Yesterday, some members of the sports blogosphere decided to change the blog highlights to the colors of Virginia Tech. They did this, so they said, to honor the dead and to show support for the living. They did this to proclaim, as one blog said, that while they may have gone to different colleges, for yesterday, they were Hokies.
Uhm, no.
Now, I'm not feeling all that fond of the sports blogosphere lately anyway. There's only so much overt homophobia, implicit misogyny, and implied racism one intelligent adult can take. But this particular gesture struck me as even more, well, crass than the sports blogosphere usually is. And believe me, that's awfully crass.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing but sympathy for those who were directly or indirectly affected by Monday's events. But the 32 people murdered on Monday weren't the only people murdered last week. They weren't the only people who died last week. They weren't the only victims of a horrendous act last week. Further, the others who died last week were no less worthy of being honored, their families no less in need of support, then those at Virginia Tech. So where's the show of solidarity for those folks? Where's the proud proclamations on their behalf?
That's why I find the gesture so crass. When your only connection is tangential at best - "Hey! I'm in college too!" or "Hey! I'm a human being too!" - it's not about supporting or honoring. It's about co-opting the grief of others to show how wonderful you yourself are. It's about proclaiming to the world that "I am a good, kind, caring person." It's self-serving, not supportive, and it's offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
