Unifnished thoughts about politics
If you think any of this gibberish looks interesting, you should poke around and subscribe to my RSS feed to keep up with new content.
I’ve been reading but don’t have the mental energy to put together coherent opinions. Here’s what I’ve got.
- Read this: The People vs. Jeremiah Wright. Brilliant piece on, essentially, why I think political coverage is crap.
- Political coverage in America is a disgrace because the media has an inherent desire to create conflict because they assume that conflict is the only thing that gets viewers.
- American voters are pampered. It’s embarrassing to live in a nation where it’s political suicide to tell voters when they are wrong.
- I am sick of the democratic primary.
- I would probably not be sick of the democratic primary if I felt like anyone were discussing issues instead of trying to turn democracy into one big freak show.
Whoops - Hillary Clinton headlines?
My new favorite Facebook application. What great headline selection:
Happy Birthday Conrad
It’s my brother’s birthday today, which is without a doubt the best of all possible times to put a ridiculous picture of him on the internet:
Happy birthday Conrad, you’re an awesome brother. Much love.
- Jason
Michigan and Florida: I’m sorry, but you missed out
If I were a voter in Michigan or Florida, Democrat or Republican, I would be furious.
John Scalzi agrees with me.
Because at this point is is impossible for two things to happen simultaneously:
- Me to count in the primary
- This to be a fair nomination
The fact is that the current mess is someone’s fault, and we know who those people are. Why this was not a giant story when it was happening is absolutely beyond me.
A group degenerates in each of these states got together and gambled with the votes of the people they represent, without the permission of those people they disenfranchised, and they lost. They knew exactly what the punishment was before the decision to move the primaries was made.
The problem is that, at this stage, the candidates have agreed to not campaign in the two states (an agreement which Clinton ignored), and what this has created is an imbalance in the process.
You damn well can’t count the results from the primaries they held, but I think everyone knows that. I also don’t think you can really have a “do-over,” and that’s for a couple of reasons: first, the states knew the penalties going in, and it’s absurdly juvenile to whine “oh, but it huuuuuurts” when you get burned.
Second, any results would be skewed by the no-campaigning agreement. I would like to assume that if I were a Hillary supporter I would think the same. I think that it’s not fair to either candidate to throw two more states on the table near the end of the race, and yell “go!”
Especially when you’ve had “trial runs” in both states already. Elections are not “try before you buy.”
Women and voting and Hillary Clinton and feminism
No, I’m not going to write a big long meaningful post about it. I have little credibility as a Woman or a feminist.
My awesome girlfriend, however, has plenty. Go read her post on The Big Blog. Here’s a teaser:
Barack Obama was acting as quite the gentleman toward Hillary Clinton in the last couple debates. Right before the debate began, he pulled out her chair and waited for her to sit. When it ended, he got up from his seat, pulled her chair out and waited for her to stand.
In one gesture, viewers were reminded of Clinton’s gender — an inescapable mark of difference that has played a complex role on the campaign trail and has many American women, like me, wondering what, if anything, her candidacy calls us to do.
Five reasons to vote for Obama
Tomorrow brings another primary. I have not participated overly much in the “well oiled machinery” of the Obama campaign, but I know that Teresa and Baratunde are both being active and awesome proponents of his campaign.
My contribution will be a blog post (oooh, big spender, me!).
Here are five reasons to vote for Obama, in no particular order or measure of importance:
- He understands the internet. Read his stances on technology issues.
- Such a huge portion of his campaign money has come from normal, individual donors, which means that as a politician he is beholden primarily to the public.
- Despite what you’ve heard, Obama is an experienced politician and an experienced leader. And he has served as an elected official for longer than Hillary Clinton. In other words, his job has always been on the line.
- By all accounts, Obama is a really intelligent, curious man. It is far more important to have someone who can evaluate and react with innovation than someone who just knows the playbook.
- He is authentic. I have not yet heard him give the answer he thinks someone wants to hear instead of the answer he thinks is correct.
And seriously, I know it’s been said, but if you’re worried about his ability to run something big, take a look at his campaign.
Either the washington caucus finder is unbelievably dumb, or I am
Two questions:
1. Isn’t your caucus location based on your address?
2. Why can’t you search for caucus location by address?
OMFG so dumb.
Fortunately for all of us, the Obama campaign is not as dumb as the WA democratic party. Their caucus finder works by address.
Ben Adlin you should be a journalist (because, seriously, read his post about Obama)
For those of you who don’t read Liberal College Kid (which is probably most of you), I’m going to do you a favor and link to a post that Ben Adlin wrote on the 8th about Obama.
To disclose my own political preferences, I (at the moment) support Obama in his bid for the Democratic nomination. I’m as tired of candidates throwing around the c-word as everyone else seems to be, but what frustrates me is the even more cliché stance that Obama “has no substance behind his rhetoric.” It seems a favorite among people who have already made up their mind about the election, driven more by laziness than critical thinking.
Is it difficult to sum up Obama’s platform in a handful of words? Yes, it certainly is. Jake [referenced earlier in the post - JP] illustrates that point splendidly by comparing Obama’s message to those trumpeted by other candidates. Hillary is about health care (I, the American voter, get that), and Obama is about… “Change”? What in the world does that mean?
I realize that I’m posting far more than usual about politics, but what the hell, it’s a political time of year, and I think (along with my friend and co-worker Teresa) that this is an election where we are presented with the chance make an important generational shift in our leadership.
Speaking as one of these upstart young 20-somethings that have suddently decided to screw up all these primary results, I think it’s important that we recognize that part of what good leadership means is an ability to inspire.
Inspiration has the power to grant a president long coat tails with which he (or she! let’s not be unduly unfair…) can protect his political allies. It can grant a president a measure of soft power and an ability to finesse areas of foreign relations that have for too long been met with blunt instruments and “tough” politics.
And it can go a long way towards interesting the American people in what Washington is doing. Far from wanting voters to be ignoring politics (so the government can do things like, oh, erase a bunch of civil liberties?), Obama wants people to be involved. That comes from inspiration, not fear.
Let’s put an intelligent person at the head of this country. Someone with the drive and the public, cross-party mandate to shake up the incumbent political machinery.
Obama has my vote. I hope he has yours, too.
Barack Obama South Carolina Victory Speech: read it
I’ve posted before about why I support Obama. This is why.
It’s about getting rid of the over-influence of lobbyists. It’s about leading by inspiration instead of ruling with fear. It’s about building a coalition. Yes, it’s about change.
Read it:
Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.
Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.
After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.
They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.
But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.
So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.
We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.
We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.
And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.
But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.
That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.
So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.
Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.
The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.
The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.
The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.
The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It’s about the past versus the future.
It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.
There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.
But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.
When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.
When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.
Yes we can change.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can seize our future.
And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:
Yes. We. Can.
Why I support Barack Obama (and why I don’t support Hillary Clinton)
I don’t normally post about politics on this blog anymore, because I like to appeal to everyone. I think if you appeal to everyone it’s more…money, and this is a good thing (credit: Steve Martin).
But recently I’ve started watching some Presidential campaign coverage and I’ve now seen one or two debates, and I now have An Opinion. So I feel like if I change at least one person’s mind, the post is worth it.
Major Reasons I support Obama:
- The man is extremely well spoken. (Communication is…ahhh…what’s the word?) - He can state his opinions forcefully AND respectfully, which is 80% of Getting Your Way. That’s important in foreign relations.
- He tends to answer questions, which means I can decide whether or not I agree with him (see below).
- I agree with him on health care.
- Obama’s leadership stye is inspiration, which is largely derided by people who are incapable of inspiring, and is far healthier for our nation that the culture of fear with which we’ve been run for the past eight years.
Major Reasons I Don’t Support Hillary Clinton:
- We’ve had either a Clinton or a Bush leading this country since 1989. I don’t like dynasties.
- She refuses to have any opinions. I’d like her better if I could disagree with her. More than any other reason, this is why I dislike her. Be honest with me. If I you and I have different ideas, but you state them and you support them, it shows me two very important things: first, that you’ve thought about why you have said opinion, and second, that you’re willing to back it up.
Major reason I see the candidates as significantly different, despite their common over-use of the word “change”:
When Obama says “change,” he means to effect a fundamental change in the way things are accomplished in national politics. I believe that he is “naive enough” to do it. And I believe that changing it will make for a better America. When Hillary says “change,” she means policy changes and message changes, but she is comfortable in and probably somewhat dependent on the very political “system” which Obama seeks to change.
I owe thanks to my friend Ben Adlin, who is a wonderful backboard for my political thoughts.
Why newspapers are screwed? Why we should be worried
I know it’s a little bit fun to run the numbers like this on why newspapers are screwed financially going forward:
Revenue drops by more than half, 40%-50% of employees get fired, and the company still loses money. Using the NYT’s Q2 numbers and these assumptions, for example, revenue would have dropped from $789 million to $285 million. More importantly, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) would have dropped from $118 million to -$64 million. Which means that management would just be getting ready to fire a few hundred more people.
But this worries me. The basic idea behind that article is that the bulk of the money the NYT spends is on content creation. Which is SO IMPORTANT.
If we’re going into a world where nobody can afford to go out and do reporting…I’m not excited to get there. There’s enough crap, non-news already. TV stations barely do research. Newspapers account for almost all new information injected into the media, absolutely including blogs.
So if newspapers die…who is going to keep us informed? You can bet people won’t volunteer with the same rigor or accuracy. And, have you WATCHED TV news recently? I really don’t need to know about the six year old girl who can’t smile. I need to know about what my Senators are voting on today.
I, for one, hope newspapers (and by extension, magazines) stay around. They’re the one source of news I still consider a source of news.
YouTube debate questions? That’s freaking cool
Have you guys seen the news that CNN is going to host a debate where presidential candidates will be forced to evade amateur, softball questions posed by YouTube users?
More than 2,000 video questions have been submitted, representing a cross-section of issues and coming from as far away as Spain, Panama and Chad.
CNN editors, including tonight’s debate moderator, CNN host Anderson Cooper, will select as many as four dozen to air in the two-hour broadcast from Charleston, S.C. But the submissions, which must be 30 seconds or less, can be viewed at Youtube.com.
That’s a pretty sweet debate idea. Bringing the debate back to the masses instead of having some boring, pre-arranged posing contest where candidates spend too much time thanking the host for such an excellent question. Let’s have some stupid questions, so they can skip that part and go straight to the answer!
Only in America is it bad to be healthy
In the New York Times today, President Bush is quoted on his intent to veto a new expanded health care bill being introduced by Senate Democrats:
President Bush has threatened to veto what he sees as a huge expansion of the children’s health care program, which he describes as a step “down the path to government-run health care for every American.”
Normally, I’d consider “government-run health care for every American” a better deal than “privately run health care for rich Americans,” but apparently the President knows something I don’t, and we’re better off letting large portions of our population die because they can’t afford health care.
Abstinance only education
Interesting conversation at Liberal College Kid, where some of my friends post. Lots of good stuff in the comments.
Someone just compared sex to gun use:
I’m fine for sex education in the class room, as long as it also incorporates mandatory weapons training, responsible wine tastings, and the rules for low-speed games of vehicular “chicken.”
Tongue somewhat-in-cheek, I realize, but I’m not sure it’s a valid analogy. People are generally born with a set of equipment that they’re physically and emotionally tied to throughout their life. Stands to reason they should learn about it.
Guns…are not as ubiquitous or necessary.
Dow Jones "tentatively agreed” to Murdoch’s offer
I have one particularly eloquent thing to add to this article in the NYTimes:
Nooooooooooooooooooo
Murdoch already owns everything from the Times of London to Fox News Channel–meaning that the chances of you picking up media in the western world that isn’t controlled by either Murdoch or Ted Turner are smaller than You-Know-Who’s You-Know What.
Not only that, but this is the man who is notorious for meddling in “news” articles, slanting information and somehow managing to cater to the most misinformed citizenry in the United States despite the fact that his cable news is “fair and balanced.” Inexplicable.
I think it’s a bad idea for a couple, basic reasons:
- Newspapers, especially the WSJ, aren’t dying yet and don’t need a lifeline.
- Having two or three people controlling 90% of the information we as people receive is just a bad idea. Did you see Wag the Dog? If Turner and Murdoch decided to fake a freaking War, we’d have no idea they made it up.
So please, Bancroft family, don’t sell!
Blogged with Flock
Tags: bancroft, wsj, wall street journal, murdoch, newscorp
-
Subscribe
-
Jason's Shared Items
-
Contact Me
j [at] jason-preston.com
AIM/Skype: Jasonp107 -
MyBlogLog
-
Admin