Quips: Quick commentary on politics, technology and life, I think.

Friday, May 28

What the election is really about

Most of the population believe this election to be Bush vs. Kerry. But most of the population is wrong. This is not Bush vs. Kerry (despite what dumb poll questions like "Whom would you rather go to a barbeque with?" might lead you to believe). This is an election for what kind of executive branch should be in charge of this country. A better way to think of the election would be to ask "What group of people would you rather have on your team? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Ashcroft/Powell/Ridge? Or (and this is pure speculation on my part)Kerry/Edwards/McCain/Clark/?/?/Vilsack?" Because it's not just about who's at the top, it's about all the decisions made by everyone in the executive branch and their ideologies. Bush could fire Rumsfeld and Rice tomorrow, but nothing would change because he'd just fill those positions with more people who think like him and subscribe to his worldview. We have to fire the whole executive branch, and since impeachment isn't viable, we can only do that this November.

The Democratic Party should stop engaging in the Bush vs. Kerry comparisons, because the Republicans are banking on Kerry's inability to turn voters on. Democrats should start framing this as Bush's inept team vs. Kerry's (for now imagined) dream team. (Note to Kerry: Please name your shadow cabinet ASAP, so the media can start some better comparisons and you can stop taking all the heat!!!) We have to find a way to make people see this as a package deal. It's a bit of a paradigm shift to stop thinking in terms of man-to-man and start thinking in terms of the team concept, but with help, most of the population can get there.

Posted by Jen, 9:47 AM :: :: #

Wednesday, May 26

Must post despite delay

I know there's nothing quite like looking back through week-old "news" but I've had these stories taking up tabs in my browser for quite some time. I guess that puts them in the category of interesting enough to take note of, but not quite interesting enough to collect those thoughts right now.
  In any case, here are some thought-provokers:

• ROCHELLE RILEY: Boos and shouts cloud real issue: "We haven't moved forward from 9/11. We just put it away where we can't see it and went back to work the way President George W. Bush asked. But maybe we were not supposed to move forward. Maybe we were not supposed to go on with life as usual. Maybe, we are supposed to have learned greater lessons than we have."
• Politics Keeps Great Cars Off Our Shores: "The Sierra Club routinely campaigns for the demise of SUVs. The UAW protests, citing freedom of choice in the marketplace and job protection for the thousands of Americans who make a living selling and servicing SUVs." ... I'm guessing the good people of Lordstown, Ohio, will build anything GM can get Americans to buy. For the time being, they're building 350,000 Cavaliers and Sunfires a year.
• Caught Over a Barrel: Soaring Gas Prices Have Motorists' Wallets Running on Empty: "People who wouldn't stoop to pick up a Lincoln head on the sidewalk drive miles out of their way or idle in lines to save a cent per gallon."

Posted by jb, 10:16 PM :: :: #

Wednesday, May 19

Flag thrown on propaganda masquerading as news

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress that is sometimes the only hope of even-handed conclusions in politically charged Washington, has decided that the "information" the administration distributed in the form of a "video news release" about the Medicare reforms was misleading enough to be labeled "covert propaganda."

"The accounting office said the videos were 'not strictly factual news stories' and were flawed by 'notable omissions and weaknesses' in their explanation of the Medicare law. But the main problem, it said, is that they were 'misleading as to source.'
  The government, it said, served up a 'purported news story' using 'alleged reporters' to read scripts prepared by the government, but 'nothing in the story packages permits the viewer to know that Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia were paid with federal funds.'"

Oh, and a rolling boo goes out to all the TV stations that stooped to using the tapes, even though they should have known that the person who said "reporting" in the clip had done no such thing.

Posted by jb, 11:12 PM :: :: #

Gravy train leaving the station; this could be your last morsel

It's not often that I criticize a New York Times story. While this one has some nice nuggets about the president's team making big public announcements while awarding grants from programs it has tried to cut, overall it seems to get bogged town by the question of who's paying for the trips.

"The contrast between politics and policy is particularly striking when the administration takes credit for spending money appropriated by Congress against the president's wishes."

Seems like this is a question that should be asked now each time a grant announcement is made. Of course, in local papers, the article usually takes on a laudatory tone, especially if a member of the local congressional delegation was responsible for "saving" the program. No mention though of who tried to cut it.

Posted by jb, 10:17 AM :: :: #

Tuesday, May 18

Why you might be paying more for gasoline

I'm paying more than $2 a gallon for gasoline. How 'bout you? Bloomberg News Service seems to have hit on a reason why prices are up, and may not come down soon:

"ConocoPhillips, the largest U.S. oil refiner, last month posted its biggest quarterly profit since the 2002 acquisition that formed the company. ChevronTexaco Corp., the second-biggest U.S. oil producer, said earnings rose 33 percent to the highest level since a 2001 merger formed the company. Refining profit doubled."

Posted by jb, 7:13 PM :: :: #

Sunday, May 16

Three good reads

The one section I wish I could spend more time with in the Times' Week in Review. This week had three really interesting headlines, the first two I've asked myself, the third is example of something that doesn't get thought about until somebody writes about it.

• At $2 a Gallon, Gas Is Still Worth Guzzling — Even datelined Ypsilanti, in the heart of car country. And I've wondered myself how high gas prices have to go before I'll start cringing and changing my habits.
• The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts — At least somebody's starting to take stock of reality.
• Christian Cool and the New Generation Gap — Poses an interesting question: "And if religion is our link to the timeless, what does it mean that young Christians replace their parents' practices?" Which seems to happen with every new generation.

Posted by jb, 10:54 PM :: :: #

Mitch scores again, and it isn't even sports

I've sometimes been chastised for not being opinionated enough in my little write-ups on the state of the world. Sometimes it's just because, well, I couldn't say it better than it's already been said.
  Case in point: Mitch Albom thinks we should take pride in denouncing bad behavior, no matter who's misbehaving:

"I thought the greatest part of this nation was its willingness to cast an eye upon itself, to examine its leaders, its behavior, and see whether we were living up to our high standards or if we could do better.

I thought we took pride in never adopting the dogma of 'our leaders are always right' or 'our soldiers are always right' or 'our politicians are always right.' I thought that was exactly the kind of lockstep fascism we deplored in places like, well, Iraq.

... Americans can be outraged by bad conduct without hating the military. They can be outraged ... without joining the enemy. They can be outraged by one act and still be outraged by another..."

I've long thought Mitch was one of the more clear-headed people on the planet and his power with words is often more apparent when he writes about people -- be they victims of violence (this isn't the greatest example, but it works) or sports heroes (exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and that's just in the last few months) -- than when he writes about sporting events or sports teams (dude seriously wrote the same column three days in a row near the end of the Red Wings - Flames series). Sometimes, people get irked when a sports columnist tries to write about something other than sports. Maybe that's because some sports columnists don't do it that well. But Mr. Albom has proved himself in writing about people, whatever their station in life, for quite some time now.

Posted by jb, 10:44 PM :: :: #

Saturday, May 15

Quote of the week

"My first thought was, how in the hell did those people get in our Army?"

—Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Republican who served as a military policeman with the Air Force during the Korean War.

Posted by jb, 1:48 PM :: :: #

Wednesday, May 12

It's all about the world view

(or, I refuse to grant the premise)

A friend sent me a link to an old interview from Buzzflash. Chatting with a linguist, they talk about the framing of political issues based on word choice (opposing "tax relief" is even harder than opposing "tax cuts"). But the part about worldview was even more interesting to me.

In the conservative world view, which starts with a model of the family I call a "Strict Father" family, there's an assumption that the world is a dangerous place, that there is competition, there will always be winners and losers, that children are born bad and have to be made good. ...
The opposite of fear in all of this is hope and joy. It's important for liberals to stress the hope and promise of America, the joy of living in this country, and so on. You want to evoke that. But when fear is being evoked, the right-wing model is being evoked.

It reminds me of a "Poltics of Fear" lecture from a college course. Perhaps if I ever find the notebook, I'll post some of the thoughts from that.

Posted by jb, 8:30 PM :: :: #

Two points, well put

Just to prove I value the written word, time to toss some kudos to the columnists of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
  Metro columnist Bill McClellan has a nice piece on personal responsibility:

A good number of the people were hostile, and we ended up with prisoners, and that meant we needed prison guards. Who'd have expected that? And yes, there were abuses, and now Rumsfeld, at the very top of the chain of command, takes full responsibility, which means that the people at the very bottom of the chain will be prosecuted.

And this from Bob Rybarczyk on his trip to Vegas:

At one point during my trip, a guy on an elevator told me that the reason I lose when I gamble is because I believe I'm going to lose. He said that if I believed I was going to win, I'd win. I wanted to tell him that I believed he was a moron, but since that would only prove his point, I didn't.

I found it funny anyway.

Posted by jb, 8:27 PM :: :: #

Monday, May 10

On movie promotions

Gotta give a nod to my old pal Mike. While his passion for movies exceeds mine for baseball, he's still got some concerns about the marketing of major films:

"[M]y fear is marketers will make a few bigger gaffs before they figure out what level of exposure is appropriate and which levels drive people up a wall, Spider-Man not included."

He also offers some insight into why the industry invades our collective consciousnesses the way it does.
  Which reminds me. The phrase "Only in theaters" needs to be examined. Especially when, say, "Shrek 2" is plastered on cereal boxes, pop/soda displays and several other grocery store aisles.

Posted by jb, 6:45 AM :: :: #

Friday, May 7

Tonight's odometer reading: 101010

Just thought you'd like to know. And yes, an oil change would be a good thing.

Posted by jb, 12:14 AM :: :: #

Thursday, May 6

Call me a purist and a skeptic

So major league baseball is going to have a Spider-Man weekend. Apparently it involves putting a Spidey-symbol atop the bases. This makes me sad.
  But the real oddity is the quoted reason for such an abomination:

"We said we'd love to get more kids in the park. We know Spider-Man is a hot property. We thought having a Spider-Man day or weekend would be good. This is an opportunity for us to reach out to a young demographic."

As I attempt to follow this logic, I'm left with this: Baseball's people believe that movie advertisements on the field will bring people to the stadium. Casual fans are going to say to their children, "Kids, there will be spiderwebs on the bases. Let's go to a baseball game." Maybe if they actually had Spider-Man appear at the games...

UPDATES: Murray Chass's column had a few more details about the promotion: "Previews of the movie will be shown between innings, and children will receive promotional giveaways. Be the first on your block to have a Spider-Man mask and Spider-Man foam fingers." But, citing fan reaction (sadly, one of the measures was completely unscientific web polls) Columbia decided to ditch the on-base portion of the promotion. George Vecsey is not amused: "All the money that could be going to Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and other actually talented people is going to clueless executives who hatch (or at least submit to) a plan that cannot stand 24 hours of ridicule."

Posted by jb, 9:14 AM :: :: #

Wednesday, May 5

Voice of Reason

I've always liked George Will. Perhaps it was his baseball books but even when he argues politics or policy, he always seems to think before opening his mouth, a quality all too rare in modern puditry. He also seems grounded in his political philosophy, and has his positions grow from that rather than the other way around. So I tend to respect his view even if I might disagree with his conclusion.
  In any case, in his latest Washington Post column, there's a warning to the President that a change of position isn't always a bad thing:

"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."

Posted by jb, 9:50 PM :: :: #

Tuesday, May 4

Economics 101: Principles of Taxation

Buried deep within a box in an upstairs closet, I finally found it. (And the photo from 1987 I needed to locate.) My notes from high school economics class. And so, here I present, 8 principles of taxation, a.k.a. the standards of a fair tax (at least as far as economists are concerned; politicians may have a different idea of fairness):

1. Based on ability to pay — progressive taxes "sock it to the rich" because the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes; regressive taxes - those with flat rates - "sock it to the poor"
2. Based on benefits received — property taxes pay for fire departments because fire departments chiefly protect property
3. Provide enough money
4. Easy to collect
5. Difficult to avoid (so closing up some of those loopholes might be a good thing)
6. Easy to understand (another strike against the current U.S. income tax system)
7. A stable source of revenue
8. Interfere as little as possible with the economy

Feel free to apply these to any story about tax policy and tax cut proposals you may see in the next six months or so.

Posted by jb, 11:21 PM :: :: #

The difference between Bush and me

I watched part of Bush's "town hall" meeting in Dayton today on TV. For a while, I just half-listened as he spouted the same rhetoric he's been spouting for weeks. Then he said something which snagged my attention. I had a moment of clarity - one of those epiphany moments where everything becomes black and white (must be the world in which the Republicans live all the time!).

What happened was this: Bush stated very explicitly that the purpose of government was "law and justice," nothing more. Now, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the purpose of government. In a base or uncivilized society, I might agree with Mr. Bush's statement. But in an advanced society, the government has a larger responsibility to its citizens. According to Mr. Bush, government should protect its citizens from criminals and terrorists; the rest will take care of itself. I believe that government should protect its citizens from the bad guys, too, but that it should also protect its citizens from external forces that would endanger their welfare. Things like pollutants in the air and water, homelessness, lack of access to good health care, lack of high-quality education, etc. These dangers affect society in more insidious ways than crime, but make no mistake - they are just as detrimental to society. So this is where Bush and I differ - I think government should care about its citizens; Bush, for all his "compassionate conservativism," doesn't.

Posted by Jen, 10:05 PM :: :: #

Now I have an answer to my question

Story here.

Posted by Jen, 8:05 PM :: :: #

Monday, May 3

What the...?

Regarding Shrub's swing through Michigan and Ohio today and tomorrow: "The town-hall appearances are not free-ranging sessions with a cross-section of voters. Instead, organizers will permit people who have benefited from the president's tax-cut policies to ask him questions." - MSNBC.com (emphasis added)

You've got to be kidding me. The RNC is running scared. Guess I won't get a chance to talk to Bush when he's in town tomorrow. Oh, well...

(Afterthought: How are the organizers going to know who benefited from the tax cuts? Are they assuming most Republicans did? Or, haughtily, that most Americans did? Or are they going to make people bring last year's returns with them to the events and turn away anyone without a gigantic refund? Are they pre-approving the questions, too? If not, maybe we can find some people who technically benefited from the tax cuts but don't support Bush to get in and ask a question. Now I understand why protests are relegated to the side of the highway as the Bush Bus drives by - they're not allowed any closer to the actual campaign stops!)

Posted by Jen, 3:59 PM :: :: #

 More in the archives.

 j b 7 n e t [ a t ] e x c i t e [ d o t ] c o m