Shit its been a long time since I got it together. Still, I have been wondering why we haven't heard anything about an independent run by HRC or Obama. Of the two I think Obama has the easier path here. He can raise seemingly endless oodles of money at the drop of a hat. A large portion of his appeal already comes from independents.
Surely both candidates must have have considered it and discussed the pros and cons. Why haven't our glorious media pundits lavished thie genius predictions on us about this one? More importantly why hasn't Obama played this card with the supers? That would seem to knock HRC out of the box. A third party (or fourth if you count Nader) run by Obama would basically guarantee that the Dems do not take the White House. In all likelihood it hands the election to McCain on a platter, but I suppose their is some small chance that Obama could eke it out on his own. Either way, the Dems lose out. Seems like a pretty powerful bargaining chip to me.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Astounded
There are only three reasons anyone could have voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
1) They honestly believed that it was a good idea, regardless of the facts
2) They were ignorant of the facts
3) They felt that they needed to for political reasons
I can't see how any of these are acceptable. Number one is obviously inexcusable, although unfortunately more common than it should be. Number two also holds no water for me. There were hundreds of thousands of people who spoke out against this legislation and the whole cloth "facts" that the neo-cons and wart mongers ginned up as talking points. To claim ignorance or hide behind the "I was duped" meme begs credibility.
This brings us to option number three. A number of Clinton supporters have pushed back on Obama's claim that he was opposed to the war from the start by claiming that since he was not in office and did not have to cast a vote on the issue, he is getting an unfair free pass. "There is no telling what he would have done had he been forced to vote," the argument goes. Perhaps. But there is one hundred percent certainty what every other candidate would have done. Even if there was a 99% possibility that Obama would have voted yea - which there is not - it is still less than the certainty of Clinton or McCain. And what were the "costs" of a nay vote? Potential political retribution from constituents? I am not sure which astounds me more: the fact that so many people would vote for a candidate who chose their own personal fortunes over the lives of even one person, let alone the hundreds of thousands who have perished since that vote or the fact that if Clinton is the nominee, I will end up voting for her too.
1) They honestly believed that it was a good idea, regardless of the facts
2) They were ignorant of the facts
3) They felt that they needed to for political reasons
I can't see how any of these are acceptable. Number one is obviously inexcusable, although unfortunately more common than it should be. Number two also holds no water for me. There were hundreds of thousands of people who spoke out against this legislation and the whole cloth "facts" that the neo-cons and wart mongers ginned up as talking points. To claim ignorance or hide behind the "I was duped" meme begs credibility.
This brings us to option number three. A number of Clinton supporters have pushed back on Obama's claim that he was opposed to the war from the start by claiming that since he was not in office and did not have to cast a vote on the issue, he is getting an unfair free pass. "There is no telling what he would have done had he been forced to vote," the argument goes. Perhaps. But there is one hundred percent certainty what every other candidate would have done. Even if there was a 99% possibility that Obama would have voted yea - which there is not - it is still less than the certainty of Clinton or McCain. And what were the "costs" of a nay vote? Potential political retribution from constituents? I am not sure which astounds me more: the fact that so many people would vote for a candidate who chose their own personal fortunes over the lives of even one person, let alone the hundreds of thousands who have perished since that vote or the fact that if Clinton is the nominee, I will end up voting for her too.
Disagreement By A Thousand Cuts
Mcdaddy writes in on the continuing Krugman/Obama antagonisms
I definitely don’t want that.
I guess it always stings a little more when the opinion hounds turn their usual bag of tricks on someone or something you care about. So why is it that PKnyt is hell-bent on taking cheap shots at Obama, whenever possible? It’s not like Obama or his supporters are arguing in favor of the decrepit health care system that we have currently. And it is not like Clinton and her surrogates haven’t opened the door with even more cynical and supercilious attacks from their camp. My guess is that this is similar to an academic dispute in which two extremely intelligent professors start out at odds with one another based on a difference of opinion. Because it is a matter of opinion and not fact, neither one can empirically prove the other wrong, yet each knows that their counterpart is wrong. As my father–in-law is fond of saying “That’s my opinion, but I know it is right because if it weren’t right it wouldn’t be my opinion.” To admit otherwise is not possible. So the differences quickly escalate and the two colleagues become rivals. Nothing the other does can ever have any merit, because this would call into question the whole premise of the original argument. This easily devolves into the kind of counterproductive sniper fire that hinders any real progress.
As mcdaddy puts the question to Krugman:
Yo, B, my man Krugman has been dissing Obama for a solid 8 months. I am cool with folks stepping up and saying, "I don't like this brother because..." but what troubles me about Krugman is the off-handedness with which he disses Obama and today's column is a perfect example. I wrote him an e-mail today, but this topic is one that needs to be addressed in your blog immediately and if you don't, I'ma have to put you on blast, too.
I definitely don’t want that.
I guess it always stings a little more when the opinion hounds turn their usual bag of tricks on someone or something you care about. So why is it that PKnyt is hell-bent on taking cheap shots at Obama, whenever possible? It’s not like Obama or his supporters are arguing in favor of the decrepit health care system that we have currently. And it is not like Clinton and her surrogates haven’t opened the door with even more cynical and supercilious attacks from their camp. My guess is that this is similar to an academic dispute in which two extremely intelligent professors start out at odds with one another based on a difference of opinion. Because it is a matter of opinion and not fact, neither one can empirically prove the other wrong, yet each knows that their counterpart is wrong. As my father–in-law is fond of saying “That’s my opinion, but I know it is right because if it weren’t right it wouldn’t be my opinion.” To admit otherwise is not possible. So the differences quickly escalate and the two colleagues become rivals. Nothing the other does can ever have any merit, because this would call into question the whole premise of the original argument. This easily devolves into the kind of counterproductive sniper fire that hinders any real progress.
As mcdaddy puts the question to Krugman:
Why are you kicking that away with silly potshots at someone who may not be on your team right now, but is certainly on your side?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Divided we stand
This is deserving of a much longer post, but I will try to bang it out tonight - perhaps I will get halfway there. Despite my (not so) youthful idealism, I honestly do not ever see a way out of the racial divide in this country. There a lots of reasons for this, many of which are well worn. The one that makes me the lose all hope, however, is the fact that a vast majority of the people in this country belong to what I would call a "post-racist era". This is not to say that racism does not exist at the level of individual people. Nor am I denying that indecencies large and small are visited upon black people all the time. Rather, the "post racist era" is one in which the history under which blacks resided in this country for 350 years loses all meaning because they are not a part of the historical or current reality of the people who are here now.
Slavery was an obviously unfair system. By obvious I mean that it was clear at the who benefited and who suffered. Slave owners' gains (monetary) tied directly to the slaves losses (pick anything here, the list is really too long to summarize). It was a zero sum equation. Fast forward to Reconstruction and the equation becomes less clear. Certainly the institutionalized apartheid in this country prior to the Civil Rights Act worked to the advantage of whites, but this system had also eliminated the clear connections between the oppressed and the oppressors. Because the benefits of the system were distributed more broadly across a larger swath of people, how much any one person "gained" became more difficult to tease out.
Jump ahead again to today and the calculus gets even murkier. We have the most just system that has ever existed in our country (this doesn't mean it is truly "just", only that it is better than everything that has come before it) still, Black Americans are on the whole severely disadvantaged. However, the nature, tone and circumstances of this inequality is either so pervasive or so ingrained in our society, that non-black people today cannot point to any real advantages their race affords them. Even people who believe on an intellectual level that there is inequality among the races have a difficult time citing specific instances that are a direct advantage of their race. Today, the scions of the slave-holding families of the Old South do not seem to experience any cognitive dissonance over the fact that their inheritance was built on the backs of blacks' lost freedom. These are the people for whom the direct link between racism and personal material benefit was the most direct. This being the case, it seems to me an impossible stretch to expect the descendants of the immigrant wave of 1870 - 1900 (let alone more recent arrivals)to contemplate the much more abstract set of benefits that they experience because they are NOT black.
With every passing generation, the "that was a long time ago, get over it" argument gains more and more credence. As a result the possibility of reconciliation and amelioration becomes more and more distant.
Slavery was an obviously unfair system. By obvious I mean that it was clear at the who benefited and who suffered. Slave owners' gains (monetary) tied directly to the slaves losses (pick anything here, the list is really too long to summarize). It was a zero sum equation. Fast forward to Reconstruction and the equation becomes less clear. Certainly the institutionalized apartheid in this country prior to the Civil Rights Act worked to the advantage of whites, but this system had also eliminated the clear connections between the oppressed and the oppressors. Because the benefits of the system were distributed more broadly across a larger swath of people, how much any one person "gained" became more difficult to tease out.
Jump ahead again to today and the calculus gets even murkier. We have the most just system that has ever existed in our country (this doesn't mean it is truly "just", only that it is better than everything that has come before it) still, Black Americans are on the whole severely disadvantaged. However, the nature, tone and circumstances of this inequality is either so pervasive or so ingrained in our society, that non-black people today cannot point to any real advantages their race affords them. Even people who believe on an intellectual level that there is inequality among the races have a difficult time citing specific instances that are a direct advantage of their race. Today, the scions of the slave-holding families of the Old South do not seem to experience any cognitive dissonance over the fact that their inheritance was built on the backs of blacks' lost freedom. These are the people for whom the direct link between racism and personal material benefit was the most direct. This being the case, it seems to me an impossible stretch to expect the descendants of the immigrant wave of 1870 - 1900 (let alone more recent arrivals)to contemplate the much more abstract set of benefits that they experience because they are NOT black.
With every passing generation, the "that was a long time ago, get over it" argument gains more and more credence. As a result the possibility of reconciliation and amelioration becomes more and more distant.
Friday, April 11, 2008
New York, Just Like I Pictured It
Back from NYC. Getting off the downtown 6 at Union Square I heard this honking noise and insane driving beat. These guys were at the top of the stairs absolutely KILLING it. Hypnotic Brass Ensemble - check them out.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
...in which I invite a few people to have a look around
Having been at it for a week now, I take the plunge. Have a look.
Warning! The article you are about to read...
I have been viciously disappointed with the media for most of my adult life. Therefore, I am hoping to make this the first in a series of harangues on the media that are aimed at absolutely nobody in particular and have no hope of actually bringing about any real change in our society.
The media ecosystem has evolved to a point where the interests of the journalists are too closely aligned with the people that they are supposed to be covering. This symbiosis has made it so that politicians seeking to influence the debate simply need to develop relationships with like-minded editors and reporters who sanitize the political spin through the use of "blind quotes" or "background briefings." Judith Miller's complicity in pushing the Iraq WMD story is one of the most disturbing examples this. Unfortunately, the use of unattributed sources happens regularly in all areas of media coverage.
The problem with unattributable sources is clear - they do not provide the reader with enough information to evaluate the claims being made. Are the sources acting altruistically or are they pushing an hidden agenda? Are they expert enough or familiar enough with the issue to actually provide valid analysis? However, the argument in favor of confidential sources is compelling. Without the guarantee of confidentiality, many sources would not come forward for fear of retribution, which would result in the public knowing less information.
What to do? Here is a simple proposal: news outlets should follow the standards set by Wikipedia with regard to sourcing. If an item uses unattributed sources there should be a disclaimer prominently displayed either at the top of the article or, in the case of TV news, in the lower third graphic. Journalists will still be free to work their sources in the same ways, whistle blowers and leakers will still have protection and the public will have the benefit of knowing up front how they want to evaluate the claims made.
Now I can foresee some pushback from the media on this, since articles with "warning labels" will most likely arouse the suspicion of readers and possibly make them less likely to read or believe the piece. My response? That's kind of the point now, isn't it?
The media ecosystem has evolved to a point where the interests of the journalists are too closely aligned with the people that they are supposed to be covering. This symbiosis has made it so that politicians seeking to influence the debate simply need to develop relationships with like-minded editors and reporters who sanitize the political spin through the use of "blind quotes" or "background briefings." Judith Miller's complicity in pushing the Iraq WMD story is one of the most disturbing examples this. Unfortunately, the use of unattributed sources happens regularly in all areas of media coverage.
The problem with unattributable sources is clear - they do not provide the reader with enough information to evaluate the claims being made. Are the sources acting altruistically or are they pushing an hidden agenda? Are they expert enough or familiar enough with the issue to actually provide valid analysis? However, the argument in favor of confidential sources is compelling. Without the guarantee of confidentiality, many sources would not come forward for fear of retribution, which would result in the public knowing less information.
What to do? Here is a simple proposal: news outlets should follow the standards set by Wikipedia with regard to sourcing. If an item uses unattributed sources there should be a disclaimer prominently displayed either at the top of the article or, in the case of TV news, in the lower third graphic. Journalists will still be free to work their sources in the same ways, whistle blowers and leakers will still have protection and the public will have the benefit of knowing up front how they want to evaluate the claims made.
Now I can foresee some pushback from the media on this, since articles with "warning labels" will most likely arouse the suspicion of readers and possibly make them less likely to read or believe the piece. My response? That's kind of the point now, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)