The second presidential debate. Overall, McCain performed pitifully. Obama was OK. I hate to hear from him the requisite "tough talk" re: foreign policy, but he at least was able to articulate his thoughts in a coherent manner. McCain was just all over the place.
And point of fact, McCain actually name-checked the "freedom fighters" (dig that Reagan-era term) that he claimed defeated the Soviets, with American help, in the early 80s, and then said "we made a mistake and stopped supporting the freedom fighters and let the Taliban back in." I'm paraphrasing, but this is the brunt of what the man said. Is he really unaware that the "freedom fighters" who expelled the Soviets and the Taliban who came to power in 1997 are one and the same? And beyond that, that they both defeated the USSR and gained control of Afghanistan with the money and weapons that the US provided them? Does John McCain know this? Does he know anything??
Snap polls say it was an Obama smackdown. This, coupled with the Biden dismantling of Sarah Palin, and the McCain camp's gung-ho move towards ultra-negative campaigning, could signal the demise of the Republican candidate.
08 October 2008
06 October 2008
29 September 2008
The Bailout Is Dead
Such high drama on Capitol Hill these days. It's riveting.
A few thoughts...
The Paulson plan deserved to be killed for a number of reasons, but the most important is that it went looking for a solution in the wrong place, that is the buying up of troubled Wall St assets. Pual Krugman, Brad DeLong, Nouriel Roubini, and others have argued convincingly that the best way to fix the problem is a recapitalization of failing banks, not simply taking their junk off their hands. This is how Sweden avoided calamity in the early 90s, so there is precedent as well. The Paulson plan would amount to suturing someone's leg when their head has a hole in it.
The politics of the matter are downright ugly. The House Republicans killed this bill, and the reasons seem to vary wildly, from simple cover-your-ass mentality in an election year to actual principled opposition to funding this rescue with taxpayer money. But the failure on both ends lies with the GOP, from their President and Congress who allowed this mes to happen, to the partisan posturing that resulted in the No vote.
But, Democrats should not be so eager to pass something just to be seen as proactive, especially when the major tenets of the bill are and always have been Republican-authored. Again, some Democrats voted Nay on principle, some on political considerations. But the key is to get sensible, take a deep breath, and get to the bottom of it, thereby crafting a plan that addresses the problem properly, protects the taxpayer, and installs a frameork for prevention of future disaster.
A few thoughts...
The Paulson plan deserved to be killed for a number of reasons, but the most important is that it went looking for a solution in the wrong place, that is the buying up of troubled Wall St assets. Pual Krugman, Brad DeLong, Nouriel Roubini, and others have argued convincingly that the best way to fix the problem is a recapitalization of failing banks, not simply taking their junk off their hands. This is how Sweden avoided calamity in the early 90s, so there is precedent as well. The Paulson plan would amount to suturing someone's leg when their head has a hole in it.
The politics of the matter are downright ugly. The House Republicans killed this bill, and the reasons seem to vary wildly, from simple cover-your-ass mentality in an election year to actual principled opposition to funding this rescue with taxpayer money. But the failure on both ends lies with the GOP, from their President and Congress who allowed this mes to happen, to the partisan posturing that resulted in the No vote.
But, Democrats should not be so eager to pass something just to be seen as proactive, especially when the major tenets of the bill are and always have been Republican-authored. Again, some Democrats voted Nay on principle, some on political considerations. But the key is to get sensible, take a deep breath, and get to the bottom of it, thereby crafting a plan that addresses the problem properly, protects the taxpayer, and installs a frameork for prevention of future disaster.
28 September 2008
James Fallows Throws Down
Check it.
For kicks, just try and parse this nonsense from Sarah Palin during her Katie Couric interview:
Couric: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.
It's just sad. When you can't handle questioning from Katie fucking Couric, you know you're pathetic.
Remember - Palin has undoubtedly been briefed about what will be asked of her. She's been sequestered away and tutored and trained and told what to expect. And she still fails. I think she's actually worse than George W. Bush.
For kicks, just try and parse this nonsense from Sarah Palin during her Katie Couric interview:
Couric: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.
It's just sad. When you can't handle questioning from Katie fucking Couric, you know you're pathetic.
Remember - Palin has undoubtedly been briefed about what will be asked of her. She's been sequestered away and tutored and trained and told what to expect. And she still fails. I think she's actually worse than George W. Bush.
27 September 2008
There's Always Something Beneath The Surface
The Washington Post offers a fascinating glimpse into the political wrangling over the financial bailout plan. Remember that this is the backdrop for Friday's presidential debate, the one McCain said he wouldn't do if there wasn't a deal, but which went ahead anyway after McCain's very presence in the negotiations ruined the deal.
As more and more leaks out about McCain's true character, it's clear that he is just a nasty bastard. His not looking at Barack last night was just the surface.
As more and more leaks out about McCain's true character, it's clear that he is just a nasty bastard. His not looking at Barack last night was just the surface.
21 September 2008
Kill Them With Facts
Random tidbits from a few weeks sleuthing....
ONE:
Sarah Palin, in her Charlie Gibson interview, proposed drilling for oil in the ANWR nature reserve. She claimed that oil reserves occupy only 2,000 sq mi of a 20,000 sq mi habitat. This is correct. But the implication is that drilling for oil in Alaska will produce enough fuel to ease American dependence on foreign oil. This is false. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day. 12 million barrels a day come from imports. The federal government's own estimates state that ANWR drilling would not reach peak production until 2025, and then the most it could provide would be 80 thousand barrels a day. That equates to %.04 of US daily oil consumption.
It is simple fact that oil reserves on this planet will one day run out. The Palin/McCain ticket is outright in favor of squeezing the last drops of black gold from the earth, consequences be damned, over developing sustainable energy to deal with the inevitable.
TWO:
US spending on health care in 2007 reached $2.3 trillion. That's %16 of GDP. Barack Obama's health care proposal has estimated costs of $50 to $65 billion per year. The Fed bailout of Bear Sterns in May cost $29 billion. The seizing of IndyMac bank cost $8.9 billion. The takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has a $100 billion price tag. AIG's rescue cost $85 billion. The newest proposal by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asks for $700 billion.
That adds up to just under $840 billion.
It's more illustrative to write it out: 840,000,000,000
Many, many people claim universal health care would be too expensive. In 6 months the Treasury has propped up Wall St with 12 times more capital than the Obama health care plan would cost for one year.
The priorities of the federal government could not be clearer.
ONE:
Sarah Palin, in her Charlie Gibson interview, proposed drilling for oil in the ANWR nature reserve. She claimed that oil reserves occupy only 2,000 sq mi of a 20,000 sq mi habitat. This is correct. But the implication is that drilling for oil in Alaska will produce enough fuel to ease American dependence on foreign oil. This is false. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day. 12 million barrels a day come from imports. The federal government's own estimates state that ANWR drilling would not reach peak production until 2025, and then the most it could provide would be 80 thousand barrels a day. That equates to %.04 of US daily oil consumption.
It is simple fact that oil reserves on this planet will one day run out. The Palin/McCain ticket is outright in favor of squeezing the last drops of black gold from the earth, consequences be damned, over developing sustainable energy to deal with the inevitable.
TWO:
US spending on health care in 2007 reached $2.3 trillion. That's %16 of GDP. Barack Obama's health care proposal has estimated costs of $50 to $65 billion per year. The Fed bailout of Bear Sterns in May cost $29 billion. The seizing of IndyMac bank cost $8.9 billion. The takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has a $100 billion price tag. AIG's rescue cost $85 billion. The newest proposal by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asks for $700 billion.
That adds up to just under $840 billion.
It's more illustrative to write it out: 840,000,000,000
Many, many people claim universal health care would be too expensive. In 6 months the Treasury has propped up Wall St with 12 times more capital than the Obama health care plan would cost for one year.
The priorities of the federal government could not be clearer.
Class Warfare
This is the best summation of the current administration brinksmanship and what it means about US capitalism and power that I have yet read.
For what it's worth, I sent emails to both NY Senators (I never do that shit) imploring them to deny the bailout proposal passage.
Forget the November election. This is the turning point for the nation's future.
For what it's worth, I sent emails to both NY Senators (I never do that shit) imploring them to deny the bailout proposal passage.
Forget the November election. This is the turning point for the nation's future.
20 September 2008
Scottish Guitar Army
I've seen Mogwai a half-dozen times and Thursday night at Terminal 5 was definitely the best show I've seen them put on. How can it not be when the setlist includes Like Herod, New Paths To Helicon, AND Mogwai Fear Satan? From my position in the second balcony, the band seemed to be enjoying themselves, swigging beer and making faces at each other. Somehow that makes their titanic noise all the more bracing, seeing such unexceptional dudes create such a mind-blowing ruckus.
A Picture Needs A Frame
Usually the comments left on political blogs are nonsense, but on Atrios tonight, i saw someone spin the new Treasury bailout plan as the "sale of America," and I think that's a very useful frame Barack Obama might want to start using right away.
Also, from the bailout proposal text:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
That's pretty fucking bold.
Also, from the bailout proposal text:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
That's pretty fucking bold.
Ok, One More For Today
For his entire presidency, George W. Bush has tried to avoid the fate of his father, brought low by a feeble economy. (NY Times)
This is too much. How exactly has he "tried?" By doing nothing?
This sounds like the desperate opening sentence (you know, the thesis, as they say in grammar school) of a college paper written by a student who has no idea what he's talking about.
This is too much. How exactly has he "tried?" By doing nothing?
This sounds like the desperate opening sentence (you know, the thesis, as they say in grammar school) of a college paper written by a student who has no idea what he's talking about.
The Pre-Eminent Critic of Treasury Dept. Policy
A fourth, smaller group of lawmakers was highly critical and in some cases adamantly opposed to the plan. That group included including Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont.
“The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America,” Mr. Bunning declared on Friday. “The action proposed today by the Treasury Department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been misled throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.” (NY Times)
It's funny how he can be so wrong and so right all at the same time. Yes, the government has failed the people, but not in the way being suggested. Years of de-regulation and enacting policies benificial to Wall St but detrimental to the public, that's the failure. And there never was a true "free market" in America.
Thirty years of treating the government as a mere backup plan for insanely risky financial activities, that's the problem - and Democrats and Republicans are to blame. The millionaires need to reap what they've sown, not get a free pass on the taxpayer's dime.
And, for the record:
From Baseball-reference.com:
Jim Bunning
Yrs W L ERA SO
17 224 184 3.27 2,855
“The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America,” Mr. Bunning declared on Friday. “The action proposed today by the Treasury Department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been misled throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.” (NY Times)
It's funny how he can be so wrong and so right all at the same time. Yes, the government has failed the people, but not in the way being suggested. Years of de-regulation and enacting policies benificial to Wall St but detrimental to the public, that's the failure. And there never was a true "free market" in America.
Thirty years of treating the government as a mere backup plan for insanely risky financial activities, that's the problem - and Democrats and Republicans are to blame. The millionaires need to reap what they've sown, not get a free pass on the taxpayer's dime.
And, for the record:
From Baseball-reference.com:
Jim Bunning
Yrs W L ERA SO
17 224 184 3.27 2,855
Say What You Mean
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer. (Actual text from the proposed financial bailout plan)
I would suggest that after $85B for AIG and $700B for basically whatever, protecting the taxpayer should be the first priority.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer. (Actual text from the proposed financial bailout plan)
I would suggest that after $85B for AIG and $700B for basically whatever, protecting the taxpayer should be the first priority.
15 September 2008
House of Cards
Bear Stern collapsed six months ago. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government last week. Just this weekend Lehman asked the Fed for backup and was refused, now they are moving towards liquidation. Merril Lynch sold itself off. AIG, after refusing a private buy-out, is also asking for Fed assistance, but has been turned down as well.
Drip drip drip.
Seems like it's all falling apart, doesn't it?
And here we are talking about lipstick on a pig.
Drip drip drip.
Seems like it's all falling apart, doesn't it?
And here we are talking about lipstick on a pig.
07 September 2008
"S&P slashes Fannie, Freddie preferred stock to junk"
The above is a Reuters headline about the Treasury Dept bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but it reads better as a crime blotter headline. Picture the dysfuctional Standard Home Loan family finally imploding as newly minted gang-member "S&P" attacks his sister Fannie with a blade and brother Freddie blots out the world shooting up junk bonds in the corner.
Now I'm not very good with economics, but as I understand this situation, it's mostly a Band-Aid for a gunshot wound. Economists argue the mathematics of the Treasury's capital infusion and debate the efficacy of preffered stock to common stock, but the larger issue is the continuing exposure of the US economic system as a house of cards. Fannie and Freddie are, as Government Supported Enterprises, inherently risky propositions, operating within a tricky netherworld between the private and public sectors. And they also happen to support the entirety of the US housing market. It's too often overlooked, in accounts that I read, that this impacts the ability of citizens to own a home - that's a home, a place to rest your head, give you shelter from the storm, the bedrock of civilized society. Also overlooked is the fact that most Americans can't afford to buy a home. The elimination of Freddie/Fannie stock dividends affects rich people and only rich people, but to read the newspapers, this is the most important aspect of the current crisis, not the fact that more and more people are losing their homes and many others are unable to buy homes at all.
It is stated quite clearly in the Fannie/Freddie charters that their investments are not explicitly backed by the Treasury, but decades of promises to foreign lenders by institutions both public and private have forced the Treasury's hand into a de facto backing of these loans. The situation today is the result of many years of foolish behavior that made the current bailout "inevitable", because it certainly isn't feasible to default on millions of dollars to foreign interests. But how long can the high-wire act continue? Shuffling debts from place to place does nothing to enact a long-term solution.
But long-term solutions are politically difficult, as they would require a serious rethinking and painful reconfiguration of the American system of corporate socialism. Most people seem content to shut their eyes and hope the problem disappears. It most certainly will not. It doesn't take an Economics PhD to see that.
I expect the bailout will result in some short-term benefit, followed by the predictable rosy-viewed editorializing, all of which will be poltically expedient to someone. But the true effects won't be apparent for some time, and their likely to get worse and worse the longer an actual solution is avoided. Which could leave the next President in an impossible position as the caretaker of the worst economic collapse since the Depression.
Now I'm not very good with economics, but as I understand this situation, it's mostly a Band-Aid for a gunshot wound. Economists argue the mathematics of the Treasury's capital infusion and debate the efficacy of preffered stock to common stock, but the larger issue is the continuing exposure of the US economic system as a house of cards. Fannie and Freddie are, as Government Supported Enterprises, inherently risky propositions, operating within a tricky netherworld between the private and public sectors. And they also happen to support the entirety of the US housing market. It's too often overlooked, in accounts that I read, that this impacts the ability of citizens to own a home - that's a home, a place to rest your head, give you shelter from the storm, the bedrock of civilized society. Also overlooked is the fact that most Americans can't afford to buy a home. The elimination of Freddie/Fannie stock dividends affects rich people and only rich people, but to read the newspapers, this is the most important aspect of the current crisis, not the fact that more and more people are losing their homes and many others are unable to buy homes at all.
It is stated quite clearly in the Fannie/Freddie charters that their investments are not explicitly backed by the Treasury, but decades of promises to foreign lenders by institutions both public and private have forced the Treasury's hand into a de facto backing of these loans. The situation today is the result of many years of foolish behavior that made the current bailout "inevitable", because it certainly isn't feasible to default on millions of dollars to foreign interests. But how long can the high-wire act continue? Shuffling debts from place to place does nothing to enact a long-term solution.
But long-term solutions are politically difficult, as they would require a serious rethinking and painful reconfiguration of the American system of corporate socialism. Most people seem content to shut their eyes and hope the problem disappears. It most certainly will not. It doesn't take an Economics PhD to see that.
I expect the bailout will result in some short-term benefit, followed by the predictable rosy-viewed editorializing, all of which will be poltically expedient to someone. But the true effects won't be apparent for some time, and their likely to get worse and worse the longer an actual solution is avoided. Which could leave the next President in an impossible position as the caretaker of the worst economic collapse since the Depression.
04 September 2008
Addendum
This is just too rich.
During her remarks, one of the younger of Ms. Palin’s children was captured on television cameras holding the four-and-a-half month baby, Trig, and stroking his head. (NY Times)
The passive voice strikes again. "Was captured on television cameras" implies a fortuitous twist of fate, rather than a carefully stage-managed spectacle. They were passing that baby around like the Stanley Cup starting with Guliani's speech. Unbelievably crass. Also, it's worth asking who brings their four-month-old to a big noisy political rally? And for the record, she was not just "stroking his head," she was flattening his hair with her spit-covered fingers. That little girl was way cute but it was a bizarre image. You could even see here dredging up the saliva in her mouth.
I feel really bad for that kid.
During her remarks, one of the younger of Ms. Palin’s children was captured on television cameras holding the four-and-a-half month baby, Trig, and stroking his head. (NY Times)
The passive voice strikes again. "Was captured on television cameras" implies a fortuitous twist of fate, rather than a carefully stage-managed spectacle. They were passing that baby around like the Stanley Cup starting with Guliani's speech. Unbelievably crass. Also, it's worth asking who brings their four-month-old to a big noisy political rally? And for the record, she was not just "stroking his head," she was flattening his hair with her spit-covered fingers. That little girl was way cute but it was a bizarre image. You could even see here dredging up the saliva in her mouth.
I feel really bad for that kid.
Sarah Palin's Speech
Pretty bad all told. And what bizarre television coverage on ABC. First all the cut-aways to Cindy McCain during Rudy Guliani's truly odiuos "speech." And why was she holding the little Down's Syndrome baby? And why was the baby even there? And how uncomfortable did Bristol and her baby-daddy look? I try to keep these blogs in proper English but tonight it's just too much. I should know better than to listen to Republicans speak.
A quick dissection:
1. Taking about fifteen minutes to introduce every member of your family may be a good way to address a Tupperware or Avon meeting, but Ms. Palin you are running for Vice President of the United States. It also kind of ruins the whole "family is off limits" meme your running mate has been floating all day. To Democrats I say, fire away!
2. She doesn't exactly exude charisma, and her overall tone was snide and patronizing. Not as bad as Guliani but it seems a serious misstep to let Palin follow in his attack-dog style, especially after his speech ran so long. They talk about Obama as if he just finished his undergraduate, which is especially rich coming from the "Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard," who only got a passport last year.
3. The essential thrust of the speech was, "John McCain is awesome, we're going to shake up Washington, Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal, I love my family and it's really large, p.s. John McCain is awesome."
The tax-and-spend/big government thing is like regressing to 1988, not to mention the current administration's idea of fiscal responsibility amounts to running a $300 trillion deficit. For the family bit, see above (plus, she really said her husband races "snow machines"?!). And finally, it's also rather bold to run on a platform of "shaking up Washington" with a six-term member of Congress under the banner of the party that has been in power for 30 of the last 38 years.
Also, John McCain is not awesome. John McCain is very boring.
4. Lastly - predictably, nauseatingly, the press is eating it up. It would be quaint to hear George Stephanopoulous say "she did really well for a first time in front of so many people," if it didn't speak to a press corp so willing to lower the bar. The NY Times says she "electrified" the party faithful. I saw many confused, bored, even sullen faces in the crowd. The speech was stultifying, full of tired talking points and just plain nonsense. I'm biased of course, but I actually feared she would give a great speech. She did not. But what I should have realized is that when the media lauded her speaking abilities beforehand, they were simply writing the preamble to the plaudits they would lavish on her afterward, regardless of her actual performance.
I have a feeling that real people aren't buying it, but it's so hard to tell, being in New York. Biden should eat her alive in the debates, but we'll see if anyone notices.
By the way, the first step is admitting you have a problem - I am an election addict.
A quick dissection:
1. Taking about fifteen minutes to introduce every member of your family may be a good way to address a Tupperware or Avon meeting, but Ms. Palin you are running for Vice President of the United States. It also kind of ruins the whole "family is off limits" meme your running mate has been floating all day. To Democrats I say, fire away!
2. She doesn't exactly exude charisma, and her overall tone was snide and patronizing. Not as bad as Guliani but it seems a serious misstep to let Palin follow in his attack-dog style, especially after his speech ran so long. They talk about Obama as if he just finished his undergraduate, which is especially rich coming from the "Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard," who only got a passport last year.
3. The essential thrust of the speech was, "John McCain is awesome, we're going to shake up Washington, Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal, I love my family and it's really large, p.s. John McCain is awesome."
The tax-and-spend/big government thing is like regressing to 1988, not to mention the current administration's idea of fiscal responsibility amounts to running a $300 trillion deficit. For the family bit, see above (plus, she really said her husband races "snow machines"?!). And finally, it's also rather bold to run on a platform of "shaking up Washington" with a six-term member of Congress under the banner of the party that has been in power for 30 of the last 38 years.
Also, John McCain is not awesome. John McCain is very boring.
4. Lastly - predictably, nauseatingly, the press is eating it up. It would be quaint to hear George Stephanopoulous say "she did really well for a first time in front of so many people," if it didn't speak to a press corp so willing to lower the bar. The NY Times says she "electrified" the party faithful. I saw many confused, bored, even sullen faces in the crowd. The speech was stultifying, full of tired talking points and just plain nonsense. I'm biased of course, but I actually feared she would give a great speech. She did not. But what I should have realized is that when the media lauded her speaking abilities beforehand, they were simply writing the preamble to the plaudits they would lavish on her afterward, regardless of her actual performance.
I have a feeling that real people aren't buying it, but it's so hard to tell, being in New York. Biden should eat her alive in the debates, but we'll see if anyone notices.
By the way, the first step is admitting you have a problem - I am an election addict.
02 September 2008
When Pulling Out Is Not An Option
From the NY Times, regarding Sarah Palin's daughter:
At a reception for educators at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Sandra Ross, a special-needs high school teacher from Orlando, Fla, said, “She’s going to be a good role model for the country.” Of Bristol’s pregnancy, Ms. Ross added, “Everybody makes mistakes.”
"Everybody makes mistakes." True. But one wonders what exactly the "mistake" was in this instant. Was it having sex before marriage or having sex without protection? Of course, ostensibly, using birth control is verboten in the Republican world view, which also frowns upon sex before marriage, so really the only applicable "mistake" is in not following an "abstinence-only" approach.
During the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign, Sarah Palin responded thusly to a survey question posed to her:
Will you support efforts to raise or lower the mandatory age of education? Why or why not?
SP: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children.
Sarah Palin as a parent and member of government believes that "abstinence-only" is the only appropriate form of sex education. Assuming that Sarah Palin ever talked to her 17-year-old daughter about sex, we must assume that she preached "abstinence-only." It apparently did not work with her daughter. It's fair to wonder then how she can support it as national policy.
(This is all so much faux naif pondering. It's well-documented that preaching abstinence does not work at all, and that teenagers have sex at a pretty much constant rate, regardless of the type of sex-ed they receive. I'd be willing to bet that kids have fucked at the same rate all throughout human history, but that's another story...)
The right-wing will whine and claim that it's unfair to bring these issues up, but she's their choice for vice-president, it's their policies she supposedly espouses, and it's eminently fair to judge them against reality. And anyway, this is national politics, this is hardball, major leagues, this is the Presidential Election - everyone knows that every single speck of dirt about a candidate is going to be dredged up and rehashed in spectacular fashion.
It's infuriating to see Republicans herald a female candidate and then demand she be treated with kid's gloves. Ask Hillary Clinton how gently she was ever treated by the right. I feel bad for the daughter, but her mother advocates policies that simply don't work, and she must be upbraided for it.
At a reception for educators at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Sandra Ross, a special-needs high school teacher from Orlando, Fla, said, “She’s going to be a good role model for the country.” Of Bristol’s pregnancy, Ms. Ross added, “Everybody makes mistakes.”
"Everybody makes mistakes." True. But one wonders what exactly the "mistake" was in this instant. Was it having sex before marriage or having sex without protection? Of course, ostensibly, using birth control is verboten in the Republican world view, which also frowns upon sex before marriage, so really the only applicable "mistake" is in not following an "abstinence-only" approach.
During the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign, Sarah Palin responded thusly to a survey question posed to her:
Will you support efforts to raise or lower the mandatory age of education? Why or why not?
SP: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children.
Sarah Palin as a parent and member of government believes that "abstinence-only" is the only appropriate form of sex education. Assuming that Sarah Palin ever talked to her 17-year-old daughter about sex, we must assume that she preached "abstinence-only." It apparently did not work with her daughter. It's fair to wonder then how she can support it as national policy.
(This is all so much faux naif pondering. It's well-documented that preaching abstinence does not work at all, and that teenagers have sex at a pretty much constant rate, regardless of the type of sex-ed they receive. I'd be willing to bet that kids have fucked at the same rate all throughout human history, but that's another story...)
The right-wing will whine and claim that it's unfair to bring these issues up, but she's their choice for vice-president, it's their policies she supposedly espouses, and it's eminently fair to judge them against reality. And anyway, this is national politics, this is hardball, major leagues, this is the Presidential Election - everyone knows that every single speck of dirt about a candidate is going to be dredged up and rehashed in spectacular fashion.
It's infuriating to see Republicans herald a female candidate and then demand she be treated with kid's gloves. Ask Hillary Clinton how gently she was ever treated by the right. I feel bad for the daughter, but her mother advocates policies that simply don't work, and she must be upbraided for it.
28 August 2008
On Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech
Obama has had some difficulty adjusting to the role of nominee after defining himself as an upstart. His keynote address at the 2004 DNC remains his most impressive moment, but there were flashes tonight of the powerhouse he could become. It took him about half of the speech to get going, but once he did it was powerful stuff. Forget the inevitable mythologizing of the American spirit and the recitation of his policy points - where Obama really succeeded was in framing himself within a continuum of historical progress and by extension painting his opposition as stalwarts of a bygone era.
Invoking everything from labor movements and suffragettes, to Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton, and finally Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama evinced an iconic confidence that even a cynic like myself can appreciate. His critique of McCain and Bush were by far his most forceful yet, but they didn't come off as mean-spirited or gratuitous. He was able to attach the gravity of our current situation to the need for bold change, and do so convincingly, which is rather nice after the aw-shucks, stay-the-course mentality of the last eight years.
Now I'm only commenting on his speech as a speech, I have no idea if he'll be able to pull it off. But it was truly exciting to watch him hit his stride, to hear his cadence establish a natural rise and fall, and his aping of Dr. King's flow at speech's end, with the repetitions of "America, we cannot turn back," rose well above homage, and could well become a touchstone moment in Democratic politics.
On the pragmatic side, the stage managing of the event could have been better. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to take these things as you would a Hollywood film, and judge them according to the same criteria. The DNC would be a bit like Spiderman, assuredly over-the-top but still entertaining and ultimately affecting. It was, however a poor choice to show video clips of Obama making stump speeches, as some of the same stock phrases showed up in his acceptance speech just minutes later. I got the impression that Obama himself wasn't thrilled at repeating those phrases. It seemed like he hurried through them, to get them over with.
I also feel that he may come across as arrogant to some, or possibly aloof, though that's more an issue of people's warped perceptions than anything he should concern himself with. To me McCain comes off as a fool when trying to mimic the gee-whiz folksiness of Bush, but maybe some people gravitate to that, I don't know.
In the end Obama did an admirable job and left no doubt that he understands his moment and has completely embraced it. It's not at all sure that he will succeed. Something in me worries that America may still be slow in accepting such radical change. But it is clear that Barack Obama is not pandering or pulling any punches, and that is something to be proud of.
Invoking everything from labor movements and suffragettes, to Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton, and finally Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama evinced an iconic confidence that even a cynic like myself can appreciate. His critique of McCain and Bush were by far his most forceful yet, but they didn't come off as mean-spirited or gratuitous. He was able to attach the gravity of our current situation to the need for bold change, and do so convincingly, which is rather nice after the aw-shucks, stay-the-course mentality of the last eight years.
Now I'm only commenting on his speech as a speech, I have no idea if he'll be able to pull it off. But it was truly exciting to watch him hit his stride, to hear his cadence establish a natural rise and fall, and his aping of Dr. King's flow at speech's end, with the repetitions of "America, we cannot turn back," rose well above homage, and could well become a touchstone moment in Democratic politics.
On the pragmatic side, the stage managing of the event could have been better. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to take these things as you would a Hollywood film, and judge them according to the same criteria. The DNC would be a bit like Spiderman, assuredly over-the-top but still entertaining and ultimately affecting. It was, however a poor choice to show video clips of Obama making stump speeches, as some of the same stock phrases showed up in his acceptance speech just minutes later. I got the impression that Obama himself wasn't thrilled at repeating those phrases. It seemed like he hurried through them, to get them over with.
I also feel that he may come across as arrogant to some, or possibly aloof, though that's more an issue of people's warped perceptions than anything he should concern himself with. To me McCain comes off as a fool when trying to mimic the gee-whiz folksiness of Bush, but maybe some people gravitate to that, I don't know.
In the end Obama did an admirable job and left no doubt that he understands his moment and has completely embraced it. It's not at all sure that he will succeed. Something in me worries that America may still be slow in accepting such radical change. But it is clear that Barack Obama is not pandering or pulling any punches, and that is something to be proud of.
26 August 2008
Joy Division
Grant Gee, director of the Radiohead tour documentary Meeting People Is Easy, offers another excellent example of pop music cinema. Stylistically, the film is more of a traditional documentary than the Radiohead film, constructing its narrative through interviews with various denizens of the Manchester post-punk scene, bandmembers Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook and Stephen Morris included.
The formalist experimentation of Meeting People Is Easy does reappear at various moments, most successfully in montages contrasting modern Manchester with the decaying metropolis of the late 70s. Gee is skilled at framing shots of urban landscapes that exude a certain bleary ennui. That theme was a main component of Meeting People Is Easy, and of Radiohead's OK Computer, but here a better connection is drawn between Joy Division's restless, relentlessly modern music, the society that shaped it, and the cutting edge production techniques of Martin Hannett that made Unknown Pleasures and Closer such bracing listening experiences.
Furthermore, while the Factory Records saga has been dramatized a couple of times in recent years, it is still exhilirating to hear principle figures such as Tony Wilson, Paul Morley and Peter Saville recount their experiences. What is most striking is the element of social critique present in the commentaries. One gets the impression of the Manchester scene as a collection of serious individuals who were well aware of the attack they were levelling against modern society, whether explicitly or implicitly, as in the disquiet at the heart of all Joy Division songs. Perhaps it is inevitable that a retrospective film would gain deeper insight, but it is still remarkable to contrast the cogent awareness of the Manchester principles with the flailing discomfort of Thom Yorke in Meeting People Is Easy.
Some sort of generational (perhaps educational?) divide separates the two bands and allows the Manchester punks to be commentators with a directive, i.e. socialism, and yet prevents Radiohead from being more than essayers of alienation. Joy Division drive straight to the heart of disaffection, and while clumsy, their WWII allusions at least attempt an analogy to explain modern suffering. Radiohead, a truly great band no doubt, have always seemed hamstrung by the possibility of saying too much, as if this late in the game there is no possible cause or ideology to get behind.
Then again, this could be further proof that Radiohead are the perfect embodiment of their own time, just as Joy Division were in 1979. And of course its impossible to ignore the fact that Ian Curtis gave up on life. But still the attitude of the Manchester scene and the simple, direct power of the music illustrates the basic destitution of modern pop music. Its just a shame that the promise of Joy Division was snuffed out on May 18, 1980.
The formalist experimentation of Meeting People Is Easy does reappear at various moments, most successfully in montages contrasting modern Manchester with the decaying metropolis of the late 70s. Gee is skilled at framing shots of urban landscapes that exude a certain bleary ennui. That theme was a main component of Meeting People Is Easy, and of Radiohead's OK Computer, but here a better connection is drawn between Joy Division's restless, relentlessly modern music, the society that shaped it, and the cutting edge production techniques of Martin Hannett that made Unknown Pleasures and Closer such bracing listening experiences.
Furthermore, while the Factory Records saga has been dramatized a couple of times in recent years, it is still exhilirating to hear principle figures such as Tony Wilson, Paul Morley and Peter Saville recount their experiences. What is most striking is the element of social critique present in the commentaries. One gets the impression of the Manchester scene as a collection of serious individuals who were well aware of the attack they were levelling against modern society, whether explicitly or implicitly, as in the disquiet at the heart of all Joy Division songs. Perhaps it is inevitable that a retrospective film would gain deeper insight, but it is still remarkable to contrast the cogent awareness of the Manchester principles with the flailing discomfort of Thom Yorke in Meeting People Is Easy.
Some sort of generational (perhaps educational?) divide separates the two bands and allows the Manchester punks to be commentators with a directive, i.e. socialism, and yet prevents Radiohead from being more than essayers of alienation. Joy Division drive straight to the heart of disaffection, and while clumsy, their WWII allusions at least attempt an analogy to explain modern suffering. Radiohead, a truly great band no doubt, have always seemed hamstrung by the possibility of saying too much, as if this late in the game there is no possible cause or ideology to get behind.
Then again, this could be further proof that Radiohead are the perfect embodiment of their own time, just as Joy Division were in 1979. And of course its impossible to ignore the fact that Ian Curtis gave up on life. But still the attitude of the Manchester scene and the simple, direct power of the music illustrates the basic destitution of modern pop music. Its just a shame that the promise of Joy Division was snuffed out on May 18, 1980.
25 August 2008
Why We Fight
Today's NY Times contains an article about the struggle to teach evolution in Florida's public schools. In recent years many school districts around the nation have actively sought to limit or indeed ban evolution from biology curriculum. "Intelligent Design" has become a buzzword for supposed alternative theories, but the real conflict is not between two theories of natural life, but rather between those who utilize science in the quest for knowledge and those who discount science outright.
Over the last 50 years a continual %50 of American adults have proclaimed to believe that human life was created by God, fully formed, roughly 10,000 years ago. No other First World nation shows such bizarre belief in creationism. It speaks to some element of the American psyche that predicates the idea of knowledge on unquestioned leaps of faith, on received wisdom delivered from on high. Namely, it speaks to a nation of followers, eager to be led, eager to have their belief systems laid out for them, and eager to be dominated.
Is it any wonder that so many people would be so gullible in believing that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, or that the Iraqi regime had something to do with 9-11?
Eugene Jarecki's film "Why We Fight" analyzes the American impulse for war, as well as the mechanisms that both make war possible and sell it to the public. It is not so far a leap to connect the American willingness to wage foreign wars with the prevalence of anti-scientific sentiment both in the American public and in certain intellectual circles. There is a definite element of American thought that aims to repeal the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. It seems implausible in the year 2008 but it is impossible to deny.
Pre-Enlightenment thinking embraced the concept of divine ordination. The monarchies of royalist Europe derived their power from the notion that they were only one step below God's holy authority. Even without President Bush's evangelical fervor, the repeated insistence that the American public unflinchingly put their faith in the moral righteousness of their Commander-in-Chief cannot help but reek of feudalist despotism.
As we come up on a critical election season it is worth noting that the mechanisms of domination and aggression are deeply entrenched in the very fabric of American politics and also lay at the core of public thought in America. No simple change in executive leadership can undo those shackles.
But it is also worth noting that when Dwight Eisenhower warned us to guard against the unfettered rise of the military-industrial complex, he was doing so as a precautionary measure against something which had yet to happen. True, in the last 40 years a vast consolidation has occurred across the spectra of power, but what has been built can also be dismantled, and 40 years can be but a mere blip in the biography of a nation. One thing a leader can do, though it is risky, radical, and - as the assassinations of the 1960s showed- often fatal, is to seize the reigns of the power and have the fortitude to steer things in a path of rectification rather than destruction. It remains entirely unclear whether anyone in the current political climate has the gall attempt such an action.
Many words have been spent on the 2008 election, and many more will be before November finally rolls around. But the only real issue is whether the next President will choose the to continue to write the biography of the United States, or author its obituary.
Over the last 50 years a continual %50 of American adults have proclaimed to believe that human life was created by God, fully formed, roughly 10,000 years ago. No other First World nation shows such bizarre belief in creationism. It speaks to some element of the American psyche that predicates the idea of knowledge on unquestioned leaps of faith, on received wisdom delivered from on high. Namely, it speaks to a nation of followers, eager to be led, eager to have their belief systems laid out for them, and eager to be dominated.
Is it any wonder that so many people would be so gullible in believing that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, or that the Iraqi regime had something to do with 9-11?
Eugene Jarecki's film "Why We Fight" analyzes the American impulse for war, as well as the mechanisms that both make war possible and sell it to the public. It is not so far a leap to connect the American willingness to wage foreign wars with the prevalence of anti-scientific sentiment both in the American public and in certain intellectual circles. There is a definite element of American thought that aims to repeal the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. It seems implausible in the year 2008 but it is impossible to deny.
Pre-Enlightenment thinking embraced the concept of divine ordination. The monarchies of royalist Europe derived their power from the notion that they were only one step below God's holy authority. Even without President Bush's evangelical fervor, the repeated insistence that the American public unflinchingly put their faith in the moral righteousness of their Commander-in-Chief cannot help but reek of feudalist despotism.
As we come up on a critical election season it is worth noting that the mechanisms of domination and aggression are deeply entrenched in the very fabric of American politics and also lay at the core of public thought in America. No simple change in executive leadership can undo those shackles.
But it is also worth noting that when Dwight Eisenhower warned us to guard against the unfettered rise of the military-industrial complex, he was doing so as a precautionary measure against something which had yet to happen. True, in the last 40 years a vast consolidation has occurred across the spectra of power, but what has been built can also be dismantled, and 40 years can be but a mere blip in the biography of a nation. One thing a leader can do, though it is risky, radical, and - as the assassinations of the 1960s showed- often fatal, is to seize the reigns of the power and have the fortitude to steer things in a path of rectification rather than destruction. It remains entirely unclear whether anyone in the current political climate has the gall attempt such an action.
Many words have been spent on the 2008 election, and many more will be before November finally rolls around. But the only real issue is whether the next President will choose the to continue to write the biography of the United States, or author its obituary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
