Enter the Sesame Street Generation
It’s November 5, 2008 – the morning after I watched history unfold before my eyes; a monumental win for one Barack Obama, the first African American President-elect of the United States. But amazingly, that seems to me to unduly limit last night’s accomplishment. Of course, I understand I did not live through the civil rights movement. Nor am I a minority. So perhaps, I can’t appreciate as those people can the enormity of what last night means as an issue of race. That assumption I accept. But for me, last night was more about generations than it was about race. For me, last night was a changing of the guard in many senses – a moment that once captured can never be erased or ignored or marginalised in future generations. And perhaps, a moment that, once passed, can never again be fully appreciated beyond the present.
I grew up in a politics that was always defined by cynicism, bitterness, and division. I can vaguely remember the days of Ronald Reagan’s presidency and stories of a much-united nation. I, however, was a little too young to know what it felt like to have a "popular" president. From those days, I can only remember Nancy Reagan’s exhortation at the end of my Artari and Nintendo video games to "Say No to Drugs!" So my political life has always been Bush I, Bill Clinton and Bush II. In other words, in my lifetime, it’s always been about false promises ("Read my lips"), great disappointments (Clinton’s health care), lies ("I did not have sexual relations...."), corruption (can you say Whitewater, Halliburton, et al.?), division politics (Clinton’s impeachment and the religious right), and utter ineptitude (see Bush, period). This is all I know. The other history of our country – accomplishment, unity, progress – has always been just the stuff of text books.
In many ways, and no offense is meant here, this is the politics of cynicism - the hallmark I would argue of my parent’s generation and their politics. And for good reason. They grew up amidst horrible race wars, civil rights violence, the fear of nuclear holocaust, and chronic corruption in government. Their generation saw the proliferation of drugs and gangs in the United States and a shrinking of the middle class. It’s no wonder their politics is punctuated by division and cynicism. With so many broken promises and fear to look back on, it’s no wonder that generation rarely believes anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth. And it’s no wonder the politicians of that generation learned to play that game of politics, because for them, it was the only game in town.
But for me, that stuff is also the stuff of text books. Just like the generation before my parent’s is the stuff of text books. And the story of that generation is a bit different. My grandparent’s saw great hardship and rose above it. They were confronted with a horrifying war, fought it and won it. They dragged this country out of a Great Depression, and in the wake, put this country on the path toward great progress and world power. They elected (three times) a leader that transcended the ages, and his own time, to achieve the greater good for all people. So for me, this other story of my grandparent’s politics is as compelling a historical story as the division and cynicism of my parent’s politics.
And here we are now, my generation has come of age, and the time arrived for us to make a choice. And last night was the culmination of that generational choice. A sound rejection of the politics of our parents and a hope for something more like the politics of our grandparents. Obama echoed the themes of FDR last night in his acceptance speech confirming this rejection: bi-partisanship, strong enlightened leadership, hard work, sacrifice, national service, big ideas, progress, change, a better tomorrow.
I am of what I like to refer to as the Sesame Street Generation. I grew up learning that all people should be treated with civility and respect. That all people, regardless of race, should be included at the table. I grew up learning that it was best to share, to work together, to be friendly, to stand up for the bullied kid, to be honest and forthright, to ignore race or creed or personal differences, to focus instead on the ties that bind us all together. This is doctrine we heard at school, in books and on Sesame Street. And it has taken its toll. At the same time that my parent’s generation continued to be consumed by the division and cynicism that punctuated their political lives, they purposefully imbued in their children the hope of something different and better. They spoke of a colorless, less divided, more united world in what they fed us in Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and in the process gave us the belief system to finally reject their politics.
Don’t get me wrong. This is not parousia. This is not a moment in history that brings about the change by virtue of the moment itself. Instead, it is a step in the direction of a redemption, a rebirth, a renaissance. It is an enormous body blow to the politics of division, negativity, partisanship, and corruption. It is a first break in the clouds for a generation of young people that has only known political rancor and gamesmanship. Indeed it is not the change itself, but that moment in history that makes the change possible. And that possibility is the history that was made yesterday.
In his acceptance speech, Obama asked what our generation might be remembered for 100 years from now. I think, if nothing else, last night is the first tangible sign that our generation will be remembered as the generation that believed it was ok to hope again.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Bush's Bailout for the Birds
Someone with way more knowledge than me needs to explain to me the point of this bailout. The way I see it, the problem is two-fold: (1) bad people on wall street did some highly risky things that were not really regulated because the laws were playing catch up to financial innovations in the securities market and (2) banks overextended themselves with bad loans and bad investments in bad loans. As for number one, the bailout does nothing. That bill -- a new wall street regulatory bill -- is required and must be worked on slowly and with careful consideration and balancing as to its effect and purpose under the next administration.
So I assume the second point is what the bailout is supposed to address. As far as banks extending bad loans, well, I think the market just corrected that. Banks will be much more careful going forward. End of story. So really, the bailout is just about bailing out banks that made bad investments in financial products that no one really understood. I wrote a whole article on the subprime mortgage crisis and how the loss of confidence in mortgage backed securities had a domino effect that resulted in a liquidity crisis and credit crunch in the asset-backed securities market, so I get the general approach that if the government replaces all of those "bad" assets underlying the securities market with cold hard cash, that will theoretically restore the market's confidence in the quality of these securities and in turn loosen up credit, saving these failing banks. But who cares about the failing banks. If what you are concerned about is that banks will stop lending altogether, then why not address the problem directly. Backstop the borrower at the consumer level by creating a Governmental Credit Institution to operate on a limited basis over the next few months or years while the private markets recover from the current subprime crisis. Some banks are still lending -- Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc. And some banks will need to die because they made bad bad decisions -- Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc. I just don't get attempting to solve the problem by injecting more cash into companies with failed investment strategies BEFORE you've passed the regulatory bill designed to prevent them from doing this same exact thing all over again. To me, that seems like putting good money after bad. It's like taking a full swing from the rough in the trees when what is required is a little chip shot to the fairway - there's a chance you'll cream it through the 2x2 square of daylight in the branches and land on the green, but more likely than not, you'll flub it, catch your club head in the muck, hit a tree and end up still in the trees further away from the green than when you started and with one more stroke to show for it. I say, address the problem at the root, or don't address it at all.
I am with the arch conservatives on this one -- trash Bush's Bailout Bill altogether and start working now on a consumer mortgage bailout bill which (a) forgives bad mortgages at the consumer level by replacing them with government funded fixed rate mortgages, (b) grants a period of interest rate amnesty at the consumer mortgage level to encourage good credit purchasers (like me) to buy homes at lower interest rates and (c) makes direct government funded loans to loosen up the credit crunch for small and large businesses while letting those comapnies that are no longer viable as a result of bad investment decisions fail. In the meantime, start work now on a new regulatory structure with strong oversight controls over the securities markets and new securities products to prevent risky trading in things that people don't really understand and to prevent CEOs from getting off scott free for driving perfectly good companies into the ground while lining their pockets.
But maybe I'm missing the point here....
So I assume the second point is what the bailout is supposed to address. As far as banks extending bad loans, well, I think the market just corrected that. Banks will be much more careful going forward. End of story. So really, the bailout is just about bailing out banks that made bad investments in financial products that no one really understood. I wrote a whole article on the subprime mortgage crisis and how the loss of confidence in mortgage backed securities had a domino effect that resulted in a liquidity crisis and credit crunch in the asset-backed securities market, so I get the general approach that if the government replaces all of those "bad" assets underlying the securities market with cold hard cash, that will theoretically restore the market's confidence in the quality of these securities and in turn loosen up credit, saving these failing banks. But who cares about the failing banks. If what you are concerned about is that banks will stop lending altogether, then why not address the problem directly. Backstop the borrower at the consumer level by creating a Governmental Credit Institution to operate on a limited basis over the next few months or years while the private markets recover from the current subprime crisis. Some banks are still lending -- Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc. And some banks will need to die because they made bad bad decisions -- Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc. I just don't get attempting to solve the problem by injecting more cash into companies with failed investment strategies BEFORE you've passed the regulatory bill designed to prevent them from doing this same exact thing all over again. To me, that seems like putting good money after bad. It's like taking a full swing from the rough in the trees when what is required is a little chip shot to the fairway - there's a chance you'll cream it through the 2x2 square of daylight in the branches and land on the green, but more likely than not, you'll flub it, catch your club head in the muck, hit a tree and end up still in the trees further away from the green than when you started and with one more stroke to show for it. I say, address the problem at the root, or don't address it at all.
I am with the arch conservatives on this one -- trash Bush's Bailout Bill altogether and start working now on a consumer mortgage bailout bill which (a) forgives bad mortgages at the consumer level by replacing them with government funded fixed rate mortgages, (b) grants a period of interest rate amnesty at the consumer mortgage level to encourage good credit purchasers (like me) to buy homes at lower interest rates and (c) makes direct government funded loans to loosen up the credit crunch for small and large businesses while letting those comapnies that are no longer viable as a result of bad investment decisions fail. In the meantime, start work now on a new regulatory structure with strong oversight controls over the securities markets and new securities products to prevent risky trading in things that people don't really understand and to prevent CEOs from getting off scott free for driving perfectly good companies into the ground while lining their pockets.
But maybe I'm missing the point here....
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Finding an Alternative Energy Option Is the Great Challenge of this Generation -- Where is the Leadership on this Issue?
On May 25, 1961, John F. Kennedy focused this Nation on the next great frontier for American exploration and urged the United States toward facing the challenges attendant to that frontier's exploration. He said, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." He later stated, "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
It was not JFK's original idea to send a man into space. Indeed, NASA had been formed a few years prior to JFK's famous pronouncement with the mission to "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research." Moreover, the Russians had already beat the Americans to the punch with the launch of Sputnik in 1957. In fact, it was the launch of Sputnik, and the perceived national security threat to the United States resulting from the Soviet Union's technological feat, that spurred the Nation into action.
Notwithstanding the "Sputnik Crisis" and the establishments of NASA a few years earlier, it was no doubt JFK's leadership that breathed life into the issue of space exploration and imbued the endeavor with a concrete and attainable goal. A few short years later, on a warm summer's evening in 1968, America delivered on JFK's challenge and sent a man to the Moon. The accomplishment was great and bears a lesson for today's disenchanted generation: a focused and dedicated American machine faced with the greatest challenges of its day -- even in the modern era -- can accomplish that which seems unattainable, and do so better and faster than any other nation in the world.
And so we face the next frontier of our day: the quest to find an alternative energy solution for the modern age. Much like the Space Race of the 1960s, America is faced with a national security issue of paramount importance. The rising costs of oil along with the increasing turmoil in the Mid East region, place the United States in a precarious position of reliance on those that on one day are allies, but on the next day, are enemies. It is nearly beyond dispute that the singular (but not at all simple) result of freeing this country from a dependence on oil energy would mean near total economic and consequently political independence from a region of tumultuous upheaval and of unpredictable radical (not to mention anti-American) sentiment. This independence would free the United States from partnering with political regimes and leaders with which it shares little political and social common ground. Indeed, an alternative energy solution may well be the greatest advancement for America's long-term national security and give it an invaluable leg-up on every other industrialized nation on earth.
But, if the issue is so critical and the reward so great, where is the urgency for action? Why is Congress not scrambling to find a solution as it did in 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik? Why is there no person, legislator or executive or otherwise, willing to issue the challenge to American ingenuity and focus the Nation on a concrete achievable goal for alternative energy? Why is every solution a backward-looking band aid, when what is most needed is a forward-looking cure?
Similar to the 1960s and the issue of space exploration, alternative energy is not a new idea. Hydro power has been around since the days of the water wheel. There have been huge advancements in solar, wind and nuclear energy. New concepts such as wave technologies are developing every passing day. Honda has already produced a completely gas-free (and emissions free) vehicle, which is available in southern California only because of a lack of infrastructure to support the burgeoning technology. Indeed, new technologies yet to be discovered await on the horizon. Yet, the advancements have been slow in the coming because the technology is in the hands of private industry, which looks for profits above all else to spur its research and development.
And therein lies the problem. On this issue, it is simply not enough to rely on private industry. Instead, with an issue of such paramount importance to national security and the long-term sustained and future prosperity of this Nation, the United States Government must enter the fray. It must lead the charge, issue the challenge and focus the Nation's enormous potential for technological advancement and creativity. And it must be willing to assume the incalculable economic risk of failure for the betterment of the country which no private industry would ever rightly undertake.
I like to believe that if JFK were with us today he'd utter these words: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of developing a viable alternative source of energy which would free it from every reliance on foreign oil. No single energy project in this era will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range security, viability, and prosperity of this nation's peoples; and no endeavor will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. Nonetheless, as we have done so many times before, we must once again face the challenge of our age; to choose to develop a source of energy for the future of this Nation and to do so not because it is easy, but precisely because it is hard." It is my hope, as a humble citizen, that some servant of our current government has the courage and leadership that JFK had not so long ago.
It was not JFK's original idea to send a man into space. Indeed, NASA had been formed a few years prior to JFK's famous pronouncement with the mission to "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research." Moreover, the Russians had already beat the Americans to the punch with the launch of Sputnik in 1957. In fact, it was the launch of Sputnik, and the perceived national security threat to the United States resulting from the Soviet Union's technological feat, that spurred the Nation into action.
Notwithstanding the "Sputnik Crisis" and the establishments of NASA a few years earlier, it was no doubt JFK's leadership that breathed life into the issue of space exploration and imbued the endeavor with a concrete and attainable goal. A few short years later, on a warm summer's evening in 1968, America delivered on JFK's challenge and sent a man to the Moon. The accomplishment was great and bears a lesson for today's disenchanted generation: a focused and dedicated American machine faced with the greatest challenges of its day -- even in the modern era -- can accomplish that which seems unattainable, and do so better and faster than any other nation in the world.
And so we face the next frontier of our day: the quest to find an alternative energy solution for the modern age. Much like the Space Race of the 1960s, America is faced with a national security issue of paramount importance. The rising costs of oil along with the increasing turmoil in the Mid East region, place the United States in a precarious position of reliance on those that on one day are allies, but on the next day, are enemies. It is nearly beyond dispute that the singular (but not at all simple) result of freeing this country from a dependence on oil energy would mean near total economic and consequently political independence from a region of tumultuous upheaval and of unpredictable radical (not to mention anti-American) sentiment. This independence would free the United States from partnering with political regimes and leaders with which it shares little political and social common ground. Indeed, an alternative energy solution may well be the greatest advancement for America's long-term national security and give it an invaluable leg-up on every other industrialized nation on earth.
But, if the issue is so critical and the reward so great, where is the urgency for action? Why is Congress not scrambling to find a solution as it did in 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik? Why is there no person, legislator or executive or otherwise, willing to issue the challenge to American ingenuity and focus the Nation on a concrete achievable goal for alternative energy? Why is every solution a backward-looking band aid, when what is most needed is a forward-looking cure?
Similar to the 1960s and the issue of space exploration, alternative energy is not a new idea. Hydro power has been around since the days of the water wheel. There have been huge advancements in solar, wind and nuclear energy. New concepts such as wave technologies are developing every passing day. Honda has already produced a completely gas-free (and emissions free) vehicle, which is available in southern California only because of a lack of infrastructure to support the burgeoning technology. Indeed, new technologies yet to be discovered await on the horizon. Yet, the advancements have been slow in the coming because the technology is in the hands of private industry, which looks for profits above all else to spur its research and development.
And therein lies the problem. On this issue, it is simply not enough to rely on private industry. Instead, with an issue of such paramount importance to national security and the long-term sustained and future prosperity of this Nation, the United States Government must enter the fray. It must lead the charge, issue the challenge and focus the Nation's enormous potential for technological advancement and creativity. And it must be willing to assume the incalculable economic risk of failure for the betterment of the country which no private industry would ever rightly undertake.
I like to believe that if JFK were with us today he'd utter these words: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of developing a viable alternative source of energy which would free it from every reliance on foreign oil. No single energy project in this era will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range security, viability, and prosperity of this nation's peoples; and no endeavor will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. Nonetheless, as we have done so many times before, we must once again face the challenge of our age; to choose to develop a source of energy for the future of this Nation and to do so not because it is easy, but precisely because it is hard." It is my hope, as a humble citizen, that some servant of our current government has the courage and leadership that JFK had not so long ago.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Joba Should Start
If closers existed back in the day the way they do now, then Nolan Ryan would never have gotten a shot to be what he became. People would have said he threw too hard and that his arm would die after a couple of seasons and, because he was dominant, no one would have questioned the easy decision of plopping him into the 9th inning role. Instead, people would have cheered for him to strike out the side and he would have been a dominant cult figure and universal fan favorite. But think of all that the fans (and Nolan Ryan) would have lost had Nolan Ryan not been given an opportunity to start because of his blistering fastball, ungodly yacker, and penchant for intimidation. Nolan Ryan is an icon - the proverbial power pitcher and strike out artist. A pitcher for the ages.
And this is the comparison which commands that Joba Chamberlain be given an opportunity to start baseball games. He cannot be relegated to the bullpen just because he has electric stuff and because he blows people away like we all think a closer should. He cannot be relegated to the bullpen because the crowd loves him or because he has become (overnight) a cult figure and fan favorite. I am sure, if he weren't a Yankee, he'd grow an intimidating moustache. But even this fact should not relegate Joba to the bullpen.
It is said that Joba has 4 legit plus pitches. And so, Joba must be given the chance to start. He must be given the chance to be one of the great pitchers of his era. The Yankees owe that to baseball and to the fans. The easy short-term answer of putting a pitcher with electric stuff in the bullpen should not be the ultimate answer. The chance is miniscule that Joba may actually be another Nolan Ryan or Roger Clemens, but the comparables are self-evident. He, therefore, must be groomed as a starter. Because, maybe, just maybe, he is, and it would be terribly unfortunate if we never got the chance to see and cheer for that Joba Chamberlain.
There are those that might argue that in this day and age, pitchers don't get "relegated" to the bullpen because closers are just as important as starters. This is a silly point. I love closers just as much as the next guy, but all closers are starters who could not hack it in the bigs as starters. In the case of Mariano Rivera, he was a starter who couldn't really last out of the 4th inning and only had two decent pitches (his four seam fastball and slider). And so, a move to the bullpen was natural for Mo. And it turns out he became one of (if not the) greatest closers of all time. This might not be Joba's story though.
Papelbon is an exception to this point. And what the Red Sox did with Paps is exactly what I hope the Yankees do not do with Joba. To relegate Papelbon to the bullpen before you know whether he can start or not makes sense on a team with no other closer option that feels (given the condition of Manny and Papi) that it must win now. This is not the situation with the Yanks. They have three young pitchers coming (Joba, Hughes and Kennedy) with more on the way (Horne), well established veterans (Jeter, A-Rod, Abreu) and a good young core of offensive players (Cano, Melky, Tabata) and Mariano for another three years. There is simply no urgent need for Joba to close games.
And I won't be told that Joba should close because closers are more (or even just as) valuable as starters. To say that Mariano was more valuable than Andy Pettitte in the championship years is to quickly forget how little of a difference Mariano made in recent years when the Yankees starting pitching was inadequate in the playoffs. Mariano is great, and he deserves all of the awards and adulation he gets. But, starting pitching wins games, playoffs and championships, end of story. If for no other reason, Joba should start if he can.
Now I don't meant to say that Joba needs to start today. Joba never pitched above A ball and needs time to develop maturity and arm strength and stamina. Otherwise, he'll end up hurt and no good for anything. So, bring him along slow. Keeping him in the bullpen this year with a few spot starts is perfect. He'll find his way to 100-120 innings and then continue his conditioning and throwing programs in the offseason. Think about using him as a starter next year when Mussina is gone. There is no rush. Let him ferment, learn about the cutter, build arm strength and confidence. But while he is doing all that, let's not forget that Joba is the Yankees most promising young starting pitching prospect, no matter how good he does in the 8th inning this year.
And this is the comparison which commands that Joba Chamberlain be given an opportunity to start baseball games. He cannot be relegated to the bullpen just because he has electric stuff and because he blows people away like we all think a closer should. He cannot be relegated to the bullpen because the crowd loves him or because he has become (overnight) a cult figure and fan favorite. I am sure, if he weren't a Yankee, he'd grow an intimidating moustache. But even this fact should not relegate Joba to the bullpen.
It is said that Joba has 4 legit plus pitches. And so, Joba must be given the chance to start. He must be given the chance to be one of the great pitchers of his era. The Yankees owe that to baseball and to the fans. The easy short-term answer of putting a pitcher with electric stuff in the bullpen should not be the ultimate answer. The chance is miniscule that Joba may actually be another Nolan Ryan or Roger Clemens, but the comparables are self-evident. He, therefore, must be groomed as a starter. Because, maybe, just maybe, he is, and it would be terribly unfortunate if we never got the chance to see and cheer for that Joba Chamberlain.
There are those that might argue that in this day and age, pitchers don't get "relegated" to the bullpen because closers are just as important as starters. This is a silly point. I love closers just as much as the next guy, but all closers are starters who could not hack it in the bigs as starters. In the case of Mariano Rivera, he was a starter who couldn't really last out of the 4th inning and only had two decent pitches (his four seam fastball and slider). And so, a move to the bullpen was natural for Mo. And it turns out he became one of (if not the) greatest closers of all time. This might not be Joba's story though.
Papelbon is an exception to this point. And what the Red Sox did with Paps is exactly what I hope the Yankees do not do with Joba. To relegate Papelbon to the bullpen before you know whether he can start or not makes sense on a team with no other closer option that feels (given the condition of Manny and Papi) that it must win now. This is not the situation with the Yanks. They have three young pitchers coming (Joba, Hughes and Kennedy) with more on the way (Horne), well established veterans (Jeter, A-Rod, Abreu) and a good young core of offensive players (Cano, Melky, Tabata) and Mariano for another three years. There is simply no urgent need for Joba to close games.
And I won't be told that Joba should close because closers are more (or even just as) valuable as starters. To say that Mariano was more valuable than Andy Pettitte in the championship years is to quickly forget how little of a difference Mariano made in recent years when the Yankees starting pitching was inadequate in the playoffs. Mariano is great, and he deserves all of the awards and adulation he gets. But, starting pitching wins games, playoffs and championships, end of story. If for no other reason, Joba should start if he can.
Now I don't meant to say that Joba needs to start today. Joba never pitched above A ball and needs time to develop maturity and arm strength and stamina. Otherwise, he'll end up hurt and no good for anything. So, bring him along slow. Keeping him in the bullpen this year with a few spot starts is perfect. He'll find his way to 100-120 innings and then continue his conditioning and throwing programs in the offseason. Think about using him as a starter next year when Mussina is gone. There is no rush. Let him ferment, learn about the cutter, build arm strength and confidence. But while he is doing all that, let's not forget that Joba is the Yankees most promising young starting pitching prospect, no matter how good he does in the 8th inning this year.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
You've Been Dobbs'ed
There's a new word that needs adding to Webster's Dictionary this year, and that word is "dobbs'ed." The word simply means that you have watched a news program and mistook an editorial comment for news. The essence of being dobbs'ed is that the program is ostensibly a fair and balanced news program, not an editorial show. Thus, the mistake is no fault of your own, but rather the fault of the obsession with politically-minded news shows promulgated by the 24-hour news market.
The origin of the word is CNN's celebrated journalist Lou Dobbs. On April 15, 2005, Lou Dobbs reported on his show Lou Dobbs Tonight that the migration of illegal Mexican immigrants across the Mexican-American border in Texas had caused an increase in cases of leprosy in the United States. This was not a small increase. Dobbs reported some 7,000 new cases of leprosy caused by illegally migrating Mexicans in the past three years (2002-2005). Expendable to Dobbs, apparently, was the truth. In fact, only some 150 cases of leprosy had been reported in the United States during that three-year period. The 7,000 cases Lou Dobbs reported was the number of leprosy cases reported in the United States overall over the last 30 years (not 3 years)! What's more, there's no link whatsoever, except for the one fabricated by Dobbs, to Mexican immigrants, much less illegal Mexican immigrants!
What actually happened here is readily apparent. Dobbs managed to get the numbers wrong and magically link the falsified numbers to a fabricated demographic in order to propogate his own political agenda. Not surprisingly, Dobbs is a well-known and outspoken critic of Mexican immigration. He openly supports programs like the Minutemen Project in Texas, and is against amnesty or path to citizenship proposals for Mexican immigrants. This was no mistake. This was an open and brazen fabrication by an established journalist in an effort to support a political agenda during prime time on a nationally recognized and celebrated all-news channel. Lou Dobbs is as dishonest as his facts are wrong. Remarkably, Dobbs's wife is a Mexican-American (and was arrested, no less, for carrying a loaded weapon into an airport)!
But what really frosts me is that Dobbs, though criticized, never missed a day of work. He was never censured and never suspended by CNN. His fabrication, though causing a stir among critics of the show, was never really questioned. How could an established news program make such a mistake? Where did the link to illegal Mexican immigrants come from? Isn't there something wrong with a journalist fabricating reports to advance a political agenda?
And finally, why the double standard? On April 4, 2007 (something about April apparently), Don Imus was suspended and kicked off the air altogether shortly thereafter for racially disparaging comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. While inexusable in its own right, Imus's show is a long-standing political satire show. Imus is a essentially a smart and politically savvy comedian! Dobbs is apparently a journalist! Shouldn't a complete fabrication on a news program by an established journalist be a more serious offense than insensitive comments of a comedian? Isn't Dobbs charging illegal immigrants from Mexico with transporting a deadly disease to the country equally as racially insensitive as Imus's comment?
Which brings me to another problem with Dobbs. While we are not encouraged to take Imus's show seriously -- it's held out as purely as entertainment -- Lou Dobbs is held out to the public as a fair and balanced news program. While it's plainly editorial to me and many other people (including, CNN I think they would admit if pressed), there are no doubt tens of thousands of Americans who tune in nightly to Dobbs and believe they are watching news. And that's the most offensive part about Dobbs's lies. He knows exactly what he is doing when feeds a racist line to viewers who are looking for the statistic to back up their already xenophobic outlook on the Mexican immigration issue. I have little doubt that the next day all across the country, in coffee shops and by water coolers everywhere, some poor sap was quoting Dobbs and the fabricated leprosy issue as reason enough to send every brown Mexican home and keep all the rest out. You, my friend, have been dobbs'ed.
The origin of the word is CNN's celebrated journalist Lou Dobbs. On April 15, 2005, Lou Dobbs reported on his show Lou Dobbs Tonight that the migration of illegal Mexican immigrants across the Mexican-American border in Texas had caused an increase in cases of leprosy in the United States. This was not a small increase. Dobbs reported some 7,000 new cases of leprosy caused by illegally migrating Mexicans in the past three years (2002-2005). Expendable to Dobbs, apparently, was the truth. In fact, only some 150 cases of leprosy had been reported in the United States during that three-year period. The 7,000 cases Lou Dobbs reported was the number of leprosy cases reported in the United States overall over the last 30 years (not 3 years)! What's more, there's no link whatsoever, except for the one fabricated by Dobbs, to Mexican immigrants, much less illegal Mexican immigrants!
What actually happened here is readily apparent. Dobbs managed to get the numbers wrong and magically link the falsified numbers to a fabricated demographic in order to propogate his own political agenda. Not surprisingly, Dobbs is a well-known and outspoken critic of Mexican immigration. He openly supports programs like the Minutemen Project in Texas, and is against amnesty or path to citizenship proposals for Mexican immigrants. This was no mistake. This was an open and brazen fabrication by an established journalist in an effort to support a political agenda during prime time on a nationally recognized and celebrated all-news channel. Lou Dobbs is as dishonest as his facts are wrong. Remarkably, Dobbs's wife is a Mexican-American (and was arrested, no less, for carrying a loaded weapon into an airport)!
But what really frosts me is that Dobbs, though criticized, never missed a day of work. He was never censured and never suspended by CNN. His fabrication, though causing a stir among critics of the show, was never really questioned. How could an established news program make such a mistake? Where did the link to illegal Mexican immigrants come from? Isn't there something wrong with a journalist fabricating reports to advance a political agenda?
And finally, why the double standard? On April 4, 2007 (something about April apparently), Don Imus was suspended and kicked off the air altogether shortly thereafter for racially disparaging comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. While inexusable in its own right, Imus's show is a long-standing political satire show. Imus is a essentially a smart and politically savvy comedian! Dobbs is apparently a journalist! Shouldn't a complete fabrication on a news program by an established journalist be a more serious offense than insensitive comments of a comedian? Isn't Dobbs charging illegal immigrants from Mexico with transporting a deadly disease to the country equally as racially insensitive as Imus's comment?
Which brings me to another problem with Dobbs. While we are not encouraged to take Imus's show seriously -- it's held out as purely as entertainment -- Lou Dobbs is held out to the public as a fair and balanced news program. While it's plainly editorial to me and many other people (including, CNN I think they would admit if pressed), there are no doubt tens of thousands of Americans who tune in nightly to Dobbs and believe they are watching news. And that's the most offensive part about Dobbs's lies. He knows exactly what he is doing when feeds a racist line to viewers who are looking for the statistic to back up their already xenophobic outlook on the Mexican immigration issue. I have little doubt that the next day all across the country, in coffee shops and by water coolers everywhere, some poor sap was quoting Dobbs and the fabricated leprosy issue as reason enough to send every brown Mexican home and keep all the rest out. You, my friend, have been dobbs'ed.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Kindergarten Cops
I wonder sometimes how dumb they really think we are. Politicians make, in my mind, one repeated and crucial error: they think we are all dumb. There's little doubt that some of us are definitely dumb. We can be manipulated by words and the media and are all too quick to anoint or discount candidates based solely on image. But, for the most part, I think, we are not so dumb and are genuinely interested in politics and building a better America. It appears, unfortunately, we often seem dumb as we follow the lead of the intelligent politicians and candidates acting dumbly.
For example, as the economy slides into a recession and the housing crisis continues unabated, the candidates, along with the American public, have shifted their attention from the war in Iraq to the waning economy. Indeed, the economy always is, and rightfully should be, a key focus of both the American public and every politician. And so, in an effort to appear the candidate that is strongest on economics, those running for office quickly adopted positions on "economic stimulus packages." And on both sides of the aisle in Congress, entrenched members of both parties seeking to appear capable of bipartisan cooperation on the veritable eve of the national Presidential election, found common ground on the President's proposed tax cuts. But this is not solution at all. Shouldn't we be focusing instead on bipartisan solutions to larger economic issues that squarely face the long term challenges to sustained health of the US economy? What about finding solutions to the very real problem that more and more American corporations (and the jobs that go with them) are moving overseas for cheaper labor and tax benefits? Surely, it would stimulate the economy in the long term to bring jobs back to the US, and keep those that have no left yet here in the homeland. I would imagine this kind of message and a solution to this particular problem would resonate with the "dumb" unemployed citizens out in Detroit.
And what should we do about the overcomplicated, arcane, and punishing tax system? Surely, there must be a better, if not simpler, way of taxing the American public. Right now, the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, bears the largest portion of the tax burden. Why not develop a plan to diversify the tax burden? And what about focusing on a plan to slowly shift some if not all of the current taxation to a consumer-based tax system? If you want the tax system to reflect "freedom," surely there is not greater way to do this then to allow the citizen to control, to a certain extent, the amount of taxes they absorb by choosing where they spend their money. And wouldn't that allow some people live simply, opting instead to save and retire early.
And shouldn't there be a more intelligent discussion about how to deal with the immigration issues facing this country? Proposals like building a wall between the United States and Mexico, and separating parents from children in order to send some illegal people "home" play to the basest of American reactions and toy with the difficult racist and xenophobic tendencies in us all. Even if our already sputtering economy could actually absorb the loss of 11 million critical Mexicans, shouldn't our government elevate the discussion? In grammar school, I remember learning about the "melting pot" and reading the history of many of immigrant tearfully rejoicing as they first laid eyes on the Statue of Liberty. Once a beacon of freedom, we surely have gone a long way off course when the discussion of immigration revolves around erecting walls rather than installing beacons of welcome. My solution, move the Statute of Liberty from New York harbor to the Mexican border, and teach those Texans how to work an Ellis Island-type registration center. It's high time we re-opened our borders to the less fortunate, lest we lose our identity as a nation altogether in the name of counter-terrorism.
And speaking of counter-terrorism, how has this nation advanced, if at all, since 9/11 on the issue of homeland security? Perhaps politicians have so obfuscated the issue with the Mexican immigration saga to draw our already meager attention away from the fact that nothing has been done of substance to prevent another attack on this country. Even us dumb Americans can separate the issues. Even we know that the war in Iraq and the immigration issues are something quite apart from finding an effective way to gather and act on intelligence and from developing means of protecting our currently woefully unprotected ports.
Indeed, we who are so dumb know there are big issues facing this country that need intelligent people to find solutions. But how can we advance when all that is ever discussed are kindergarten-type solutions to our doctorate-level problems. We, the dumb an downtrodden, are happy to elevate the discussion, if only you candidates were too.
For example, as the economy slides into a recession and the housing crisis continues unabated, the candidates, along with the American public, have shifted their attention from the war in Iraq to the waning economy. Indeed, the economy always is, and rightfully should be, a key focus of both the American public and every politician. And so, in an effort to appear the candidate that is strongest on economics, those running for office quickly adopted positions on "economic stimulus packages." And on both sides of the aisle in Congress, entrenched members of both parties seeking to appear capable of bipartisan cooperation on the veritable eve of the national Presidential election, found common ground on the President's proposed tax cuts. But this is not solution at all. Shouldn't we be focusing instead on bipartisan solutions to larger economic issues that squarely face the long term challenges to sustained health of the US economy? What about finding solutions to the very real problem that more and more American corporations (and the jobs that go with them) are moving overseas for cheaper labor and tax benefits? Surely, it would stimulate the economy in the long term to bring jobs back to the US, and keep those that have no left yet here in the homeland. I would imagine this kind of message and a solution to this particular problem would resonate with the "dumb" unemployed citizens out in Detroit.
And what should we do about the overcomplicated, arcane, and punishing tax system? Surely, there must be a better, if not simpler, way of taxing the American public. Right now, the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, bears the largest portion of the tax burden. Why not develop a plan to diversify the tax burden? And what about focusing on a plan to slowly shift some if not all of the current taxation to a consumer-based tax system? If you want the tax system to reflect "freedom," surely there is not greater way to do this then to allow the citizen to control, to a certain extent, the amount of taxes they absorb by choosing where they spend their money. And wouldn't that allow some people live simply, opting instead to save and retire early.
And shouldn't there be a more intelligent discussion about how to deal with the immigration issues facing this country? Proposals like building a wall between the United States and Mexico, and separating parents from children in order to send some illegal people "home" play to the basest of American reactions and toy with the difficult racist and xenophobic tendencies in us all. Even if our already sputtering economy could actually absorb the loss of 11 million critical Mexicans, shouldn't our government elevate the discussion? In grammar school, I remember learning about the "melting pot" and reading the history of many of immigrant tearfully rejoicing as they first laid eyes on the Statue of Liberty. Once a beacon of freedom, we surely have gone a long way off course when the discussion of immigration revolves around erecting walls rather than installing beacons of welcome. My solution, move the Statute of Liberty from New York harbor to the Mexican border, and teach those Texans how to work an Ellis Island-type registration center. It's high time we re-opened our borders to the less fortunate, lest we lose our identity as a nation altogether in the name of counter-terrorism.
And speaking of counter-terrorism, how has this nation advanced, if at all, since 9/11 on the issue of homeland security? Perhaps politicians have so obfuscated the issue with the Mexican immigration saga to draw our already meager attention away from the fact that nothing has been done of substance to prevent another attack on this country. Even us dumb Americans can separate the issues. Even we know that the war in Iraq and the immigration issues are something quite apart from finding an effective way to gather and act on intelligence and from developing means of protecting our currently woefully unprotected ports.
Indeed, we who are so dumb know there are big issues facing this country that need intelligent people to find solutions. But how can we advance when all that is ever discussed are kindergarten-type solutions to our doctorate-level problems. We, the dumb an downtrodden, are happy to elevate the discussion, if only you candidates were too.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Obama's Balancing Beam
Interested viewers of last night's Democratic debate in South Carolina witnessed a somewhat vitriolic exchange between Hillary and Obama that bordered on the "getting personal." The exchange last night exposes a difficult balancing acts that politicians vying for public office must face. While defending their records and qualifications for office, politicians must do so without seeming, well, defensive.
In an age of classless politics, candidates cannot afford to rely exclusively on a positive message, passively permitting adversaries, who are by nature prone to hyperbole if not outright fabrication, to control the subject of discussion and, in the process, dismantle their qualifications for office. The danger of attempting this strategy can be seen in the few weeks since Iowa. Obama, seemingly committed to a strategy of staying positive, has seen his momentum (and nearly his lead in the delegate count) evaporate. In staying positive, Obama allowed Hillary to control the issues -- she focused the American voting public on the languishing economy diverting attention away from the Iraq War, a topic she seems endlessly defensive on as a result of her yay vote for the Iraq war -- and further permitted Hillary to create an objectively unfair perception of him as an inexperienced rookie incapable of the nation's highest office. The danger of this tact was never more apparent than in the previous debate in Las Vegas where a strictly positive Obama came across as passive and soft and seemed to cede points to the more aggressive and presidential Hillary on a regular basis.
But coming out too aggressive can have a down side too. In the days leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary capitalized on a perception that the men in the race had teamed up on her at the debate. Even coming out hard in one's own defense can be a huge political mistake. Obama went on the offensive last night at the South Carolina debate, fairly accusing Hillary and Bill of hyperbole and in certain cases, downright fabrication, regarding his record and experience. His attack edged toward the personal in certain spots when he drew particular attention to Hillary's lucrative position on the WalMart Board of Directors (part of her storied 35 years of experience) and to Bill's incessant and "troubling" loose use of the facts. While his comments drew some applause at the debate, the spin from the Hillary camp followed this morning in predictable fashion. Obama, in taking the offensive, is desperate and frustrated. Indeed, this is the danger. Americans hate kiss asses, but they hate save asses even more. Seeming mean, desperate or frustrated is tantamount to admitting the nomination is lost.
So what is an Obama to do? When he is on message, staying positive, espousing change and delivering inspiring rhetoric, he is perceived as passive, weak and lacking in substance. But in being aggressive or defending his record, Obama risks coming across as a bully, or worse, as defensive and desperate. This all leads us to Obama's biggest shortcoming so far, his inability to wrest the tenor and subject of these primary battles away from Hillary. Because Hillary has guided the issues masterfully up to this point and created resonating, albeit inaccurate, perceptions about Obama, Obama has to date been unable to find an aggressive but non-combative voice.
And so, through hyperbole, misinformation, and tears, Hillary has displayed the one characteristic of which she can claim a clear advantage over Obama: image control. The Clinton camp has thus far accomplished a monumental feat in successfully presenting to the voting public a believable enough but completely dichotomous image of Hillary: the agent of change and the candidate of experience. The challenge now facing Obama requires a balancing act equally as monumental. Expose the inadequacies of Hillary's message while not seeming the bully and defend his own record while not seeming defensive. If he fails to accomplish this task in the next 14 days, he will undoubtedly lose the Democratic nomination.
In an age of classless politics, candidates cannot afford to rely exclusively on a positive message, passively permitting adversaries, who are by nature prone to hyperbole if not outright fabrication, to control the subject of discussion and, in the process, dismantle their qualifications for office. The danger of attempting this strategy can be seen in the few weeks since Iowa. Obama, seemingly committed to a strategy of staying positive, has seen his momentum (and nearly his lead in the delegate count) evaporate. In staying positive, Obama allowed Hillary to control the issues -- she focused the American voting public on the languishing economy diverting attention away from the Iraq War, a topic she seems endlessly defensive on as a result of her yay vote for the Iraq war -- and further permitted Hillary to create an objectively unfair perception of him as an inexperienced rookie incapable of the nation's highest office. The danger of this tact was never more apparent than in the previous debate in Las Vegas where a strictly positive Obama came across as passive and soft and seemed to cede points to the more aggressive and presidential Hillary on a regular basis.
But coming out too aggressive can have a down side too. In the days leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary capitalized on a perception that the men in the race had teamed up on her at the debate. Even coming out hard in one's own defense can be a huge political mistake. Obama went on the offensive last night at the South Carolina debate, fairly accusing Hillary and Bill of hyperbole and in certain cases, downright fabrication, regarding his record and experience. His attack edged toward the personal in certain spots when he drew particular attention to Hillary's lucrative position on the WalMart Board of Directors (part of her storied 35 years of experience) and to Bill's incessant and "troubling" loose use of the facts. While his comments drew some applause at the debate, the spin from the Hillary camp followed this morning in predictable fashion. Obama, in taking the offensive, is desperate and frustrated. Indeed, this is the danger. Americans hate kiss asses, but they hate save asses even more. Seeming mean, desperate or frustrated is tantamount to admitting the nomination is lost.
So what is an Obama to do? When he is on message, staying positive, espousing change and delivering inspiring rhetoric, he is perceived as passive, weak and lacking in substance. But in being aggressive or defending his record, Obama risks coming across as a bully, or worse, as defensive and desperate. This all leads us to Obama's biggest shortcoming so far, his inability to wrest the tenor and subject of these primary battles away from Hillary. Because Hillary has guided the issues masterfully up to this point and created resonating, albeit inaccurate, perceptions about Obama, Obama has to date been unable to find an aggressive but non-combative voice.
And so, through hyperbole, misinformation, and tears, Hillary has displayed the one characteristic of which she can claim a clear advantage over Obama: image control. The Clinton camp has thus far accomplished a monumental feat in successfully presenting to the voting public a believable enough but completely dichotomous image of Hillary: the agent of change and the candidate of experience. The challenge now facing Obama requires a balancing act equally as monumental. Expose the inadequacies of Hillary's message while not seeming the bully and defend his own record while not seeming defensive. If he fails to accomplish this task in the next 14 days, he will undoubtedly lose the Democratic nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)