Inexplicably, I love the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. Generally, I am not a big fan of dogs. Dogs instinctively know this, which is why they always jump all over me, given the chance. (It reminds me how I never ran into a prominent Democrat when we lived in D.C. during the Clinton years, but Bob Dole death-gripped me into a photo when he was running for President. Arm, schmarm.)
Maybe I love Westminster because it's on my TV screen: I can't smell the dogs and there's no slobbering. I love that I have picked the winner more than once, with no doggy knowledge whatsoever. (If you've ever been in the Oscar pool with me when I haven't seen any of the movies, you might wonder why I don't pack it in and go to Vegas.)
But intellectually, what I really love about the dog show is this: every dog is judged for itself. The competition isn't dog-eat-dog. Instead, each dog is judged according to its own breed standards, even for best in show, when the top dogs of each group compete for the big water dish. Are you the best YOU you can be? In other words, a beagle doesn't have to try to be a poodle to get ahead. Take that, supermodels.
I went on like this, blissfully ignorant of the truth, until Sunday's New York Times shattered my illusions and exposed the money and power behind the top dogs at Westminster. Apparently, the "special" dogs are bankrolled for thousands of dollars in Dog News (no really, Dog News) advertising and name recognition.
This "helps" the judges, who have to judge so many dogs they apparently need some pointers in the right direction. As one professional dog handler remarked to the Times, "By [pros] showing up, judges seem to say, 'Thank God you're here because I don't know what to pick.'" So, according to the article, it turns out the unknown, unadvertised underdogs don't have much of a chance against the Big Dogs. Sadly, every dog doesn't have his day.
The whole situation reeks of politics, and we all know politics sometimes reeks. Outside of the dog tent, who knows what candidate corporate campaign contributions will crown top dog in the next election cycle, thanks to the Citizens United decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Here in Cuyahoga County, corruption and (almost equally poisonous) alleged corruption have severely damaged the Democratic brand. One of the big problems in politics, nationally and especially locally, is that name recognition and familiarity often win. Not always (gObama!) but it's enough of an advantage that some aspiring local politicians will even try to change their names to get a better ballot moniker.
Let's face it, it takes a fair amount of effort to be an informed voter for local races. So, when the "pros" come in with their nice familiar-sounding name, it's easy to have the same "Thank God you're here __________ because I didn't know who to vote for," reaction (fill in the blank with your favorite local politician surname). And the voters could very well end up electing a real dog.
Those are some of the reasons why I'm signing the Statement of Values of the Cuyahoga Democrats for Principled Leadership (CDPL). The CDPL are local Democrats who want to re-energize the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, calling for ethical leadership and greater participation and transparency in party governance.
Best of all, CDPL calls for "objectivity in selecting party leaders based on qualifications and fulfillment of job responsibilities rather than on factional loyalties or control of jobs or campaign funds."
In this world of dogs and politics, that's what I call a breath of fresh air.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2010
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Testing Testing 123
Standardized testing is upon us. Upon my 7-year-old son Jonah this week, to be precise. Here's what he had to say:
"We have these very very important tests. They are very important. Very very important tests."
"They say, 'fill in the bubble under the correct answer' so you have to fill in the bubble."
"They are very important tests because the President of Testing wants to know how second-graders are doing."
"The President of Testing might even show them to Barack Obama!"
"The tests are very hard."
"At the bottom of the page it says 'Go On' and then you go on and then at the bottom of the next page it says 'Go On' and then you go on and at the bottom of the next page . . . and at the bottom of the next page it says 'Stop,' so you stop. Then it starts a new chapter. At the bottom of the page it says 'Go On' and then you go on . . . and then on the last page of the last chapter of the test book, page 99, it says stop, so you stop."
"The test book is very big."
"If you fool around on the test and answer something with the wrong answer even though you know the right answer, you have to go to the office. Because the tests are very very important."
So, I asked him how it made him feel to hear how very very important these tests are.
"Worried."
He's only a second-grader, and, President of Testing and President Obama's interests aside, I don't think these particular tests are even the biggies in terms of the State Report Card, No Child Left Behind, etc. Yet, the pressure is already huge.
The detrimental culture of testing goes even further than a week or so of pressuring small children like they're sitting for the LSAT. There's all those bland fill-in-the-bubble worksheets they do, starting in the earliest grades, to get them ready for tests later on. All the creative work they could be doing. And all the dumb movies they watch at school in the spring after the high-stakes tests are done and everyone gets to goof off because the very very important stuff is over.
Testing proponents maintain that testing helps, because it holds schools accountable for making sure every child succeeds. Unfortunately, every child does not succeed. Some states are already making tests easier and eliminating subjects, sometimes in order to address low scores or poor passage rates on graduation tests. What's wrong with this picture? Here in Ohio, budget cuts just eliminated writing and social studies tests for some elementary and middle school grades. So are the tests essential or not? Do they test something we value - or not? Are teachers going to stop teaching subjects that aren't tested - and what does that say about our educational values?
I'm no expert, but I strongly believe excellent teachers, sufficient resources, and creative curricula would do more for our kids than the barrage of tests they are now subject to. Do we want our kids to have a common base of knowledge? Ideally, perhaps, yes, although what the common base should be in a global society is another sticky question.
Our kids need to become literate (including mathematically and scientifically literate) citizens with well developed critical thinking skills and hopefully a dash of creativity. How do we get there? There's no easy solution. But bubble tests in a kiddie pressure cooker? I don't think so.
What do you think?
"We have these very very important tests. They are very important. Very very important tests."
"They say, 'fill in the bubble under the correct answer' so you have to fill in the bubble."
"They are very important tests because the President of Testing wants to know how second-graders are doing."
"The President of Testing might even show them to Barack Obama!"
"The tests are very hard."
"At the bottom of the page it says 'Go On' and then you go on and then at the bottom of the next page it says 'Go On' and then you go on and at the bottom of the next page . . . and at the bottom of the next page it says 'Stop,' so you stop. Then it starts a new chapter. At the bottom of the page it says 'Go On' and then you go on . . . and then on the last page of the last chapter of the test book, page 99, it says stop, so you stop."
"The test book is very big."
"If you fool around on the test and answer something with the wrong answer even though you know the right answer, you have to go to the office. Because the tests are very very important."
So, I asked him how it made him feel to hear how very very important these tests are.
"Worried."
He's only a second-grader, and, President of Testing and President Obama's interests aside, I don't think these particular tests are even the biggies in terms of the State Report Card, No Child Left Behind, etc. Yet, the pressure is already huge.
The detrimental culture of testing goes even further than a week or so of pressuring small children like they're sitting for the LSAT. There's all those bland fill-in-the-bubble worksheets they do, starting in the earliest grades, to get them ready for tests later on. All the creative work they could be doing. And all the dumb movies they watch at school in the spring after the high-stakes tests are done and everyone gets to goof off because the very very important stuff is over.
Testing proponents maintain that testing helps, because it holds schools accountable for making sure every child succeeds. Unfortunately, every child does not succeed. Some states are already making tests easier and eliminating subjects, sometimes in order to address low scores or poor passage rates on graduation tests. What's wrong with this picture? Here in Ohio, budget cuts just eliminated writing and social studies tests for some elementary and middle school grades. So are the tests essential or not? Do they test something we value - or not? Are teachers going to stop teaching subjects that aren't tested - and what does that say about our educational values?
I'm no expert, but I strongly believe excellent teachers, sufficient resources, and creative curricula would do more for our kids than the barrage of tests they are now subject to. Do we want our kids to have a common base of knowledge? Ideally, perhaps, yes, although what the common base should be in a global society is another sticky question.
Our kids need to become literate (including mathematically and scientifically literate) citizens with well developed critical thinking skills and hopefully a dash of creativity. How do we get there? There's no easy solution. But bubble tests in a kiddie pressure cooker? I don't think so.
What do you think?
Saturday, November 8, 2008
What Matters About What Happened
I am still in disbelief and sleep-deprived from election night. I feel like I am living in a dreamy parallel universe where Barack Obama has won the election and my big brother actually sends me a text message acknowledging "u were right all along AND u r probably the smartest." I must be dreaming. I am elated. I am exhausted. And I am thinking-
Why does it mean so much that Barack Obama won this election?
The obvious answer is race. Little kids of every race and of mixed race can now dare to dream about being President someday. (Thanks to Hillary's historic run, girls can too.) In Obama I see the faces of the kids sitting next to my sons in school, and the brilliant kids I went to school with myself, some black and some biracial, just like Barack. Just like President Obama.
For older Americans, it is, as someone said, as if the country has been reborn. For me, it means whenever Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come" comes on the radio, I start tearing up again. And that endless sea of people of every shade coming together in Grant Park - that's Barack's America. And ours.
On a smaller and pettier generational note: Finally, FINALLY - the Boomers are out of power. We can stop fighting the stale battles of Vietnam and who inhaled and focus on today's world with all of its complexities and challenges. Just in time.
Obama's election also marks the beginning of the end of Idiocracy (I can dream too, can't I?). Obama never talked down to us. He never tried to be someone he wasn't (except perhaps in that unfortunate bowling incident). He never dumbed it down. In fact, Obama would tell us not to fall for the ol' "okey-doke" when the other side tried to go to the lowest common denominator. He trusted us to be smart enough to get it, and he wasn't afraid to show he was a pretty smart guy too. As Obama said many times on the campaign trail, now was no time to have a "big election about small things." For once, we got it right and brushed aside the nonsense.
Apathy went out of fashion. Remember in 2000, when you heard over and over, "It doesn't matter if Bush or Gore becomes President. It makes no difference to my life." We know now how much it matters, in lives lost and in lost livelihoods. It matters. People who had never voted before showed up this time and their votes counted and they helped to elect the next President of the United States - because it matters. I especially want to thank the radio personalities - like my personal favorite Michael Baisden - who never let up about the election and the importance of having a voice.
At last, the Good Guys won. I was never so thrilled as when Clinton won in 1992 because it felt like the political shadow over almost my entire childhood and adolescence had lifted, and the sun was out for the first time. As my four-year-old son Mills says, "Barack Obama cares about everyone." That's it exactly. I have never felt that the Republicans cared about everyone. Not when they only want to win in "real" (read: rural white Christian) America and hold their election night party at an exclusive gazillion dollar resort. Not back when Reagan conjured up the "welfare queen" or when Pat Buchanan railed against gay rights and feminism at the 1992 Republican Convention or when McCain put air quotes around "the health of the mother."
When Barack Obama says he will be the President for the United States of America, I believe him. He understands that the problem is not that government has been in our way, but that government has not been by our side when it matters. He understands that we need to restore the social contract in America and bring back a spirit of national service. Of course President Obama won't be able to solve all our problems, but he can surely lead us in a better direction than that of the past eight years. He gets it. He's smart. He cares about everyone.
Amazingly, he won. I'm wide awake.
The sun is shining.
Why does it mean so much that Barack Obama won this election?
The obvious answer is race. Little kids of every race and of mixed race can now dare to dream about being President someday. (Thanks to Hillary's historic run, girls can too.) In Obama I see the faces of the kids sitting next to my sons in school, and the brilliant kids I went to school with myself, some black and some biracial, just like Barack. Just like President Obama.
For older Americans, it is, as someone said, as if the country has been reborn. For me, it means whenever Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come" comes on the radio, I start tearing up again. And that endless sea of people of every shade coming together in Grant Park - that's Barack's America. And ours.
On a smaller and pettier generational note: Finally, FINALLY - the Boomers are out of power. We can stop fighting the stale battles of Vietnam and who inhaled and focus on today's world with all of its complexities and challenges. Just in time.
Obama's election also marks the beginning of the end of Idiocracy (I can dream too, can't I?). Obama never talked down to us. He never tried to be someone he wasn't (except perhaps in that unfortunate bowling incident). He never dumbed it down. In fact, Obama would tell us not to fall for the ol' "okey-doke" when the other side tried to go to the lowest common denominator. He trusted us to be smart enough to get it, and he wasn't afraid to show he was a pretty smart guy too. As Obama said many times on the campaign trail, now was no time to have a "big election about small things." For once, we got it right and brushed aside the nonsense.
Apathy went out of fashion. Remember in 2000, when you heard over and over, "It doesn't matter if Bush or Gore becomes President. It makes no difference to my life." We know now how much it matters, in lives lost and in lost livelihoods. It matters. People who had never voted before showed up this time and their votes counted and they helped to elect the next President of the United States - because it matters. I especially want to thank the radio personalities - like my personal favorite Michael Baisden - who never let up about the election and the importance of having a voice.
At last, the Good Guys won. I was never so thrilled as when Clinton won in 1992 because it felt like the political shadow over almost my entire childhood and adolescence had lifted, and the sun was out for the first time. As my four-year-old son Mills says, "Barack Obama cares about everyone." That's it exactly. I have never felt that the Republicans cared about everyone. Not when they only want to win in "real" (read: rural white Christian) America and hold their election night party at an exclusive gazillion dollar resort. Not back when Reagan conjured up the "welfare queen" or when Pat Buchanan railed against gay rights and feminism at the 1992 Republican Convention or when McCain put air quotes around "the health of the mother."
When Barack Obama says he will be the President for the United States of America, I believe him. He understands that the problem is not that government has been in our way, but that government has not been by our side when it matters. He understands that we need to restore the social contract in America and bring back a spirit of national service. Of course President Obama won't be able to solve all our problems, but he can surely lead us in a better direction than that of the past eight years. He gets it. He's smart. He cares about everyone.
Amazingly, he won. I'm wide awake.
The sun is shining.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
What Do I Have Against Hillary and Her Peeps Anyway?
Why am I hatin' on all the Hillary supporters? Friends (as John McCain would say), that's not it at all. My whole family was for Hillary. Some of my best friends were for Hillary. My most brilliant students were for Hillary. Do I think they are stupid and knee-jerk? No. I also don't think they will sit out the election or vote for McCain for spite. But I did sit beside a Hillary supporter at the Cleveland Heights Democrats meeting who told me she just wouldn't vote for President since Hillary was so wronged. I've seen their quotes in the paper or on the news about how four years of McCain would be worth it to allow Hillary to run again. I saw that woman crying (and crying and crying) on CNN. PUMAs do exist. I profoundly disagree with them.
Now, there are plenty of people out there who believe McCain is best for America. Fine. I disagree with them too. But I'm not upset with true McCain supporters in particular, because they are voting their convictions. I am upset with the PUMAs in the Democratic party who will vote against their political beliefs just to avenge Hillary's loss in the primary. That is self-destructive, and unfair to the rest of us who would have to live with his policies just so they can get their petty (or strategic) revenge. And it degrades the democratic process.
If you have talked politics with me recently, you know I Don't Like Hillary. I got very tired of her tactics. I got very tired of her presenting herself as Co-President when she was really Wife Of (Obama should have been much more critical of her "experience" claim - now it is the gospel). I got very tired of her sense of entitlement. In short, I really don't like her style. Plus, I don't trust her. I feel like she will vote conservative if I turn my back for a second and she thinks it will help her win the next election.
But that's just my opinion. Plenty of people voted for Hillary because they truly believe she is the best candidate. However, I also can't count how many times I saw someone in the news say they just wanted to see a woman elected President before they die. That's great, but don't vote McCain because it didn't happen. That just leaves the rest of us hanging.
I have been for Obama since '04, when my jaw dropped during his convention keynote address. "Who IS this guy?" (and it had nothing to do with his looks this time, I swear.) He cuts through all the noise that other politicians thrive on. He gets it. It's not superiority or conceit on the part of Obama supporters - it's just our conviction that this is the right guy, and as we all know, the right guy hardly ever shows up at the right time, so let's get him elected.
The bottom line is, if the PUMA Democrats don't vote Obama, it will be one of the reasons we (all) lose. Don't be a PUMA, people!
Monday, September 1, 2008
PUMA Patrol
Ok, I looked up "PUMA" and found it stands for the very classy "Party Unity My Ass." That's beautiful, isn't it? I like my version better.
I also just perused McCain's abysmal record on women's issues. This link comes from the Obama campaign and appears to be accurate. Women who will vote for McCain just to get back at Barack Obama are throwing the rest of us under the so-called Straight-Talk Express.
Now, maybe it is a stereotype that the PUMAs are all baby boomer women, but I still think there is a big generational conflict here. Hillary and her PUMAs were all about electing a woman because she's a woman. Yes, I know they believe she's more qualified, but the real pain comes from the fact that we were thisclose to nominating the first woman, and the cool handsome young male upstart took it all away. So obsessed with the retro-feminist factor, they can't even appreciate what it means to black and biracial kids across the country that they might soon have a President who looks like them.
PUMAs seem to be mired in an outdated version of the women's movement the way Presidential politics for decades were mired in Vietnam (and I'm afraid that measuring contest's not over yet, with McCain and Biden on the tickets). Is it a coincidence that blouses with bow-ties are back in the stores? Is it all about getting a woman into a man's world or are the issues more nuanced now? That's not to say it won't be a milestone when we finally do have a woman President or that the women of the sixties didn't break down doors for the rest of us to walk right through. But we have to live in the present, and the fact is, now women are walking through those doors as breadwinners for our families and as caregivers, going to work with our kids and our infants and our breast pumps and yes, our ambitions. There's a lot more to this election than feminist symbolism. There's modern feminist reality.
Frankly, I don't want these sore losers dictating my and my kids' future. Here on the ground, we need expanded and paid family leave, equal pay for equal work, access to universal preschool and childcare, a woman's right to choose, sex education that's based in science, not religious belief. We need the Hillary feminists of yesterday to get with today's program. Yeah, that means get over it. (Hey guys - the same goes for Vietnam.)
If PUMAs vote for McCain or sit this one out, they can only blame themselves when it all falls apart. Of course, many of them will be comfortably sitting back on their pensions and Social Security, plotting for Hillary's comeback in 2012. Their daughters and grandchildren will pay the real price.
I also just perused McCain's abysmal record on women's issues. This link comes from the Obama campaign and appears to be accurate. Women who will vote for McCain just to get back at Barack Obama are throwing the rest of us under the so-called Straight-Talk Express.
Now, maybe it is a stereotype that the PUMAs are all baby boomer women, but I still think there is a big generational conflict here. Hillary and her PUMAs were all about electing a woman because she's a woman. Yes, I know they believe she's more qualified, but the real pain comes from the fact that we were thisclose to nominating the first woman, and the cool handsome young male upstart took it all away. So obsessed with the retro-feminist factor, they can't even appreciate what it means to black and biracial kids across the country that they might soon have a President who looks like them.
PUMAs seem to be mired in an outdated version of the women's movement the way Presidential politics for decades were mired in Vietnam (and I'm afraid that measuring contest's not over yet, with McCain and Biden on the tickets). Is it a coincidence that blouses with bow-ties are back in the stores? Is it all about getting a woman into a man's world or are the issues more nuanced now? That's not to say it won't be a milestone when we finally do have a woman President or that the women of the sixties didn't break down doors for the rest of us to walk right through. But we have to live in the present, and the fact is, now women are walking through those doors as breadwinners for our families and as caregivers, going to work with our kids and our infants and our breast pumps and yes, our ambitions. There's a lot more to this election than feminist symbolism. There's modern feminist reality.
Frankly, I don't want these sore losers dictating my and my kids' future. Here on the ground, we need expanded and paid family leave, equal pay for equal work, access to universal preschool and childcare, a woman's right to choose, sex education that's based in science, not religious belief. We need the Hillary feminists of yesterday to get with today's program. Yeah, that means get over it. (Hey guys - the same goes for Vietnam.)
If PUMAs vote for McCain or sit this one out, they can only blame themselves when it all falls apart. Of course, many of them will be comfortably sitting back on their pensions and Social Security, plotting for Hillary's comeback in 2012. Their daughters and grandchildren will pay the real price.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Who the Hell is Sarah Palin? and Other Questions
It's time for some political questions of the moment:
1. Who the hell is Sarah Palin? Yes I know, devoted hockey mom meets the religious right. I actually think this was a brilliant BRILLIANT chess move by McCain, but I hope I am wrong about that. It neutralizes Biden (can't pick on her in the debates or he's sexist, right Hillary?) and puts a happy personable human next to McCain. Of course, standing next to McCain, she also makes him look particularly elderly and creaky, which I like. Hopefully the concerns over her lack of experience and preparation will win the day. And is it just me (being sexist?) but who goes back to work running the state 3 days after having a special needs baby and then runs for vice-president 5 months later? Scary Republican Super-Mom, that's who.
2. Is Barack going to be tough in more than one speech? Barack did a great job in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. As one commentator said, "Here is a Democrat who has found his spine." He attacked head-on the notion that only Republicans can be trusted with wars and national security. He alluded to McCain's volatile temperment as a liability. He said, "ENOUGH." Will Barack keep it up or was that a one-time show? Everyone knows Obama is a superb speaker, but he has been notoriously generous with his opponents. Yes, it's part of his charm, but there's no time for that now. I heard comedian D.L. Hughley on the radio the other day giving some of the best political analysis I have heard in a while. He said we gotta fight this dirty, like a Republican or a Clinton. Ok, maybe not quite that dirty. But wouldn't it be great to see an ad that cuts all McCain's senior moments together with perhaps some temper and "bomb bomb Iran" for good measure? Take off the gloves, Barack. We'll still love you.
And speaking of the Clintons . . .
3. Do they really mean it? Hillary and Bill both gave excellent speeches at the DNC. In Hillary's though, I would have liked to hear less about Hillary (we get it, you were ALMOST President and you're a WOMAN) and more about why she supports Obama other than that he is not McCain. But she did everything she could to get those (in Rachel Maddow's terminology) "post-rational" PUMAs to vote for Barack. Bill filled the gap in Hillary's speech beautifully. He detailed why Obama is qualified to be President and noted that people thought Bill Clinton wasn't experienced enough either - but then we had all that prosperity and happiness back then when he was President. Remember? Remember? But until I see Bill and Hillary relentlessly on the campaign trail for Obama (and Hillary, in particular, putting the smackdown on the Palin strategy) I can't help but think what they are thinking: 2012.
4. Will the damage done by Hillary in the primary decide the election? Yes, conventional wisdom is that she acquitted herself and all is forgiven because of that speech in #3, above. But every devastating word Hillary said about Obama in the primary is now being replayed in McCain ads. Hillary painted Obama as inexperienced and unqualified for months without Republicans having to lift a finger. And then there are those rabid PUMAs - I don't know what it stands for (that's another question!) but I am guessing it is People United to Make America suck. Just sayin'.
5. In the debates, will the moderators take to heart Obama's admonition not to make this big election about little things? Or will they pursue tabloid "gotcha" questioning, as they did in the primary debates? Then their (lame) excuse was that the policy differences between Hillary and Barack were so slight, they simply had to ask about inconsequential nonsense. That line of reasoning is out the window with Obama and McCain, Biden and Palin. So now what? I won't hold my breath in this Britney-Lohan nation, but let's have the audacity to hope for something better.
6. And speaking of Britney and Lindsay Lohan, why when I listen to 96.5 Kiss FM (Cleveland's local top-40 pop station) would I think that there isn't even a Presidential campaign underway? All the newsbreaks are about "celebrities," and no, even Obama doesn't make the cut. It's irresponsible to fill young people's heads with nothing but fluff, even if you're not NPR (ick). They could take a lesson from Michael Baisden or Tom Joyner, who use their radio airwaves for more than just entertainment.
7. Finally - Is it ok to say Barack Obama is hot? My friend Jen texted me the night of the speech: "Obama is so dreamy!" Totally! Remember when the Republicans thought women would vote for Bush I because of Dan Quayle? We were so offended. Number 1, we don't vote based on looks. Number 2, Quayle was so not hot! Barack Obama is another story entirely. Of course that gleaming smile is so NOT why I'm voting for him.
Stay tuned . . .
1. Who the hell is Sarah Palin? Yes I know, devoted hockey mom meets the religious right. I actually think this was a brilliant BRILLIANT chess move by McCain, but I hope I am wrong about that. It neutralizes Biden (can't pick on her in the debates or he's sexist, right Hillary?) and puts a happy personable human next to McCain. Of course, standing next to McCain, she also makes him look particularly elderly and creaky, which I like. Hopefully the concerns over her lack of experience and preparation will win the day. And is it just me (being sexist?) but who goes back to work running the state 3 days after having a special needs baby and then runs for vice-president 5 months later? Scary Republican Super-Mom, that's who.
2. Is Barack going to be tough in more than one speech? Barack did a great job in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. As one commentator said, "Here is a Democrat who has found his spine." He attacked head-on the notion that only Republicans can be trusted with wars and national security. He alluded to McCain's volatile temperment as a liability. He said, "ENOUGH." Will Barack keep it up or was that a one-time show? Everyone knows Obama is a superb speaker, but he has been notoriously generous with his opponents. Yes, it's part of his charm, but there's no time for that now. I heard comedian D.L. Hughley on the radio the other day giving some of the best political analysis I have heard in a while. He said we gotta fight this dirty, like a Republican or a Clinton. Ok, maybe not quite that dirty. But wouldn't it be great to see an ad that cuts all McCain's senior moments together with perhaps some temper and "bomb bomb Iran" for good measure? Take off the gloves, Barack. We'll still love you.
And speaking of the Clintons . . .
3. Do they really mean it? Hillary and Bill both gave excellent speeches at the DNC. In Hillary's though, I would have liked to hear less about Hillary (we get it, you were ALMOST President and you're a WOMAN) and more about why she supports Obama other than that he is not McCain. But she did everything she could to get those (in Rachel Maddow's terminology) "post-rational" PUMAs to vote for Barack. Bill filled the gap in Hillary's speech beautifully. He detailed why Obama is qualified to be President and noted that people thought Bill Clinton wasn't experienced enough either - but then we had all that prosperity and happiness back then when he was President. Remember? Remember? But until I see Bill and Hillary relentlessly on the campaign trail for Obama (and Hillary, in particular, putting the smackdown on the Palin strategy) I can't help but think what they are thinking: 2012.
4. Will the damage done by Hillary in the primary decide the election? Yes, conventional wisdom is that she acquitted herself and all is forgiven because of that speech in #3, above. But every devastating word Hillary said about Obama in the primary is now being replayed in McCain ads. Hillary painted Obama as inexperienced and unqualified for months without Republicans having to lift a finger. And then there are those rabid PUMAs - I don't know what it stands for (that's another question!) but I am guessing it is People United to Make America suck. Just sayin'.
5. In the debates, will the moderators take to heart Obama's admonition not to make this big election about little things? Or will they pursue tabloid "gotcha" questioning, as they did in the primary debates? Then their (lame) excuse was that the policy differences between Hillary and Barack were so slight, they simply had to ask about inconsequential nonsense. That line of reasoning is out the window with Obama and McCain, Biden and Palin. So now what? I won't hold my breath in this Britney-Lohan nation, but let's have the audacity to hope for something better.
6. And speaking of Britney and Lindsay Lohan, why when I listen to 96.5 Kiss FM (Cleveland's local top-40 pop station) would I think that there isn't even a Presidential campaign underway? All the newsbreaks are about "celebrities," and no, even Obama doesn't make the cut. It's irresponsible to fill young people's heads with nothing but fluff, even if you're not NPR (ick). They could take a lesson from Michael Baisden or Tom Joyner, who use their radio airwaves for more than just entertainment.
7. Finally - Is it ok to say Barack Obama is hot? My friend Jen texted me the night of the speech: "Obama is so dreamy!" Totally! Remember when the Republicans thought women would vote for Bush I because of Dan Quayle? We were so offended. Number 1, we don't vote based on looks. Number 2, Quayle was so not hot! Barack Obama is another story entirely. Of course that gleaming smile is so NOT why I'm voting for him.
Stay tuned . . .
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Why the Dream Ticket is a Nightmare
I wish everyone would stop talking about making Hillary Clinton the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee. This dream ticket would be a nightmare. And we might wake up to find John McCain in the White House.
Ever since she realized Barack was a real threat to her preordained Presidency, Hillary has argued that he is too inexperienced to be the President. Now he’s too elite, not a down-homer like Hillary. In her recent remarks, she also implied that he just might be too black to win votes from hardworking white folks. She firmly believes she would be the better President and says so at every opportunity.
On his end, Obama has argued that it is time to turn the page in our divisive politics, and many of his supporters undoubtedly agree. They see Hillary as part of the politics of a fading era. Her combative style and low road campaigning go against everything Obama says he stands for.
The argument goes that these primary spats can be smoothed over. I’m not sure that’s true in this case, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Hillary and Barack can bury the hatchet. There’s still a problem. The so-called dream ticket would provide endless fodder for the nonstop “gotcha!” game that has consumed media coverage of the Presidential race (along with math problems involving such oddities as half of a super-delegate). This destructive distraction would far outweigh any benefit to be gained by teaming up in hopes of uniting a divided party.
It will be enough trouble getting the news media on track to focus on issues when there are so many other fun topics, like wayward pastors and Weathermen. We have the Republicans chomping at the bit to go after an official Democratic nominee. We’ve had Presidential debates where virtually every question was designed to trip up the candidate rather than elicit actual policy positions. The last thing the Democrats need is to provide more ammunition for those who would rather we miss the forest (tragically unnecessary and costly war, economy headed toward recession, diminishing infrastructure and safety net, eroding civil rights and unchecked executive power) for the trees (funny middle names, lapel pins, gotcha again!).
“Senator Clinton, you said Senator Obama wasn’t ready to be President, right up until last week. What changed your mind?”
“Senator Obama, who will be running the country on Day 1 – you or Senator Clinton?”
“”Senator Clinton, considering your view that you are the more experienced candidate, will you be acting as a Vice-President in the Cheney mold?”
“Senator Obama, you’ve been sharply critical of the Clinton campaign method. Do you feel different about that now that it’s no longer directed at you?”
And so on. The more the relationship is parsed, the less time will be spent defining the differences between the Democratic nominee and John McCain. The less we will focus on what path our nation should take at this critical moment in its history to regain our footing at home and our standing in the international community.
Then there’s Bill Clinton. He’s been just as divisive as Hillary in this primary campaign. And everyone agrees that it would be beyond awkward to have the former President hanging around the White House as the Second Spouse. Unfortunately for Hillary, with the Clintons it’s still 2-for-1, and that’s not always a good thing.
There’s no bright side. Hillary should not be the Vice-Presidential nominee. What she should do is figure out how she can best deliver her supporters to Obama for the general election, instead of continuing to insist that he’ll never get them. Here’s the dream we desperately need to come true – Hillary Clinton finally being a team player for the Democrats in this election.
Winning in November is not going to be a cakewalk. The Democrats can’t afford the distractions that would come with putting Hillary on the ticket. Whatever the exit strategy is for Hillary, it should not be the Vice-Presidency.
Ever since she realized Barack was a real threat to her preordained Presidency, Hillary has argued that he is too inexperienced to be the President. Now he’s too elite, not a down-homer like Hillary. In her recent remarks, she also implied that he just might be too black to win votes from hardworking white folks. She firmly believes she would be the better President and says so at every opportunity.
On his end, Obama has argued that it is time to turn the page in our divisive politics, and many of his supporters undoubtedly agree. They see Hillary as part of the politics of a fading era. Her combative style and low road campaigning go against everything Obama says he stands for.
The argument goes that these primary spats can be smoothed over. I’m not sure that’s true in this case, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Hillary and Barack can bury the hatchet. There’s still a problem. The so-called dream ticket would provide endless fodder for the nonstop “gotcha!” game that has consumed media coverage of the Presidential race (along with math problems involving such oddities as half of a super-delegate). This destructive distraction would far outweigh any benefit to be gained by teaming up in hopes of uniting a divided party.
It will be enough trouble getting the news media on track to focus on issues when there are so many other fun topics, like wayward pastors and Weathermen. We have the Republicans chomping at the bit to go after an official Democratic nominee. We’ve had Presidential debates where virtually every question was designed to trip up the candidate rather than elicit actual policy positions. The last thing the Democrats need is to provide more ammunition for those who would rather we miss the forest (tragically unnecessary and costly war, economy headed toward recession, diminishing infrastructure and safety net, eroding civil rights and unchecked executive power) for the trees (funny middle names, lapel pins, gotcha again!).
“Senator Clinton, you said Senator Obama wasn’t ready to be President, right up until last week. What changed your mind?”
“Senator Obama, who will be running the country on Day 1 – you or Senator Clinton?”
“”Senator Clinton, considering your view that you are the more experienced candidate, will you be acting as a Vice-President in the Cheney mold?”
“Senator Obama, you’ve been sharply critical of the Clinton campaign method. Do you feel different about that now that it’s no longer directed at you?”
And so on. The more the relationship is parsed, the less time will be spent defining the differences between the Democratic nominee and John McCain. The less we will focus on what path our nation should take at this critical moment in its history to regain our footing at home and our standing in the international community.
Then there’s Bill Clinton. He’s been just as divisive as Hillary in this primary campaign. And everyone agrees that it would be beyond awkward to have the former President hanging around the White House as the Second Spouse. Unfortunately for Hillary, with the Clintons it’s still 2-for-1, and that’s not always a good thing.
There’s no bright side. Hillary should not be the Vice-Presidential nominee. What she should do is figure out how she can best deliver her supporters to Obama for the general election, instead of continuing to insist that he’ll never get them. Here’s the dream we desperately need to come true – Hillary Clinton finally being a team player for the Democrats in this election.
Winning in November is not going to be a cakewalk. The Democrats can’t afford the distractions that would come with putting Hillary on the ticket. Whatever the exit strategy is for Hillary, it should not be the Vice-Presidency.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Gunning for the Dumb Vote
Have you seen the movie “Idiocracy”? In this satiric look at America’s future, a soldier selected for his averageness and a prostitute trying to escape her pimp are frozen in an army experiment, forgotten, and emerge 500 years later, when the United States has devolved into a society dominated by sex, violence, and crass corporate commercialism. Everyone in the future is gravely stupid as a result of the intelligentsia having fewer and fewer children for generations, while the dumb people had more and more kids. The two average folks from the past are now the smartest people in the world. The President of this future America is a professional wrestler, like the ones on WWE.
That’s right, the WWE where you recently saw our current Presidential candidates posturing for votes. Sometimes I worry that the future is now.
I don’t mean to sound like another Ivy League-educated elitist, but doesn’t it seem like the Presidential campaign keeps getting dumber and dumber? Here’s Hillary, throwing back whiskey and beer, talking about huntin’, that is when she isn’t dodging sniper fire in her personal Rambo movie. There’s Hillary threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran, leading Iran to complain to the U.N. about the threat from She-who-would-be-President-or-else. (You can almost hear John McCain singing that old ditty of his, “Bomb, bomb Iran” in the background.)
Hillary leads among Democratic voters who have a high school education or less, as well as among hunters, gun owners, and bowlers. Barack Obama is portrayed by the Clinton campaign and others as an Ivy League-educated elitist. At the same time, it’s hinted, Obama just might be an angry racist black man or Muslim – I mean, as far as we know. Wait, it’s been a full five minutes since someone mentioned crazy Jeremiah Wright – that’s far too long!
Hillary had a nice privileged upbringing and an Ivy League education. Like George W. Bush, she’s trying to portray herself as the candidate we’d like to have a beer (or a near beer) with. President Bush was elected on that basis – Gore and Kerry were too intellectual, too stiff, too “French” – and the results have been just peachy.
Not to say that Hillary isn’t smart. Her wonky command of policy detail is well documented. She’s also clever like a fox, as her sound bites and those of Fox News on Barack become harder and harder to distinguish. She’s not trying to play dumb (that would be career suicide for a woman politician); she’s just gunning for the dumb vote.
The media is interested in the dumb vote too - critical thinking is overrated when it comes to ratings. Who wants to hear about Jena, Louisiana when we can hear about Jamie Lynn Spears in Louisiana? Who wants to hear the candidates answer substantive debate questions about United States policy and the direction of the nation, when we can keep playing an endlessly fascinating game of gotcha?
On the election front, Hillary wouldn’t have it any other way. To paraphrase one of the slogans from her boomer ‘60’s: if it works for her, do it.
Barack Obama doesn’t want to play the same old game. He tried to elevate the conversation from the very start of his campaign, and for a while, it seemed like it might work. But now even he has been put on the defensive and forced into the dumb and dumber trenches. His own missteps like Bittergate haven’t helped nor has the media-hungry Reverend Wright. It’s a shame.
Barack Obama is a member of an elite, not because of his circumstances (he and Michelle only recently paid off their school loans, and are not part of any Presidential dynasty), but because he is asking the American people to rise above all the idiocy. That’s a rare and risky position to take, but he knows nothing will change until we do. Yet, with the media and his Democratic rival hurtling headfirst into the idiotic future, where is the hope? Barack needs to get his groove back and get back on message and above the fray. America needs to listen and follow him out of the muck. We can’t be so dumb as to repeat the same political nonsense over and over again, and expect a different result.
That’s right, the WWE where you recently saw our current Presidential candidates posturing for votes. Sometimes I worry that the future is now.
I don’t mean to sound like another Ivy League-educated elitist, but doesn’t it seem like the Presidential campaign keeps getting dumber and dumber? Here’s Hillary, throwing back whiskey and beer, talking about huntin’, that is when she isn’t dodging sniper fire in her personal Rambo movie. There’s Hillary threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran, leading Iran to complain to the U.N. about the threat from She-who-would-be-President-or-else. (You can almost hear John McCain singing that old ditty of his, “Bomb, bomb Iran” in the background.)
Hillary leads among Democratic voters who have a high school education or less, as well as among hunters, gun owners, and bowlers. Barack Obama is portrayed by the Clinton campaign and others as an Ivy League-educated elitist. At the same time, it’s hinted, Obama just might be an angry racist black man or Muslim – I mean, as far as we know. Wait, it’s been a full five minutes since someone mentioned crazy Jeremiah Wright – that’s far too long!
Hillary had a nice privileged upbringing and an Ivy League education. Like George W. Bush, she’s trying to portray herself as the candidate we’d like to have a beer (or a near beer) with. President Bush was elected on that basis – Gore and Kerry were too intellectual, too stiff, too “French” – and the results have been just peachy.
Not to say that Hillary isn’t smart. Her wonky command of policy detail is well documented. She’s also clever like a fox, as her sound bites and those of Fox News on Barack become harder and harder to distinguish. She’s not trying to play dumb (that would be career suicide for a woman politician); she’s just gunning for the dumb vote.
The media is interested in the dumb vote too - critical thinking is overrated when it comes to ratings. Who wants to hear about Jena, Louisiana when we can hear about Jamie Lynn Spears in Louisiana? Who wants to hear the candidates answer substantive debate questions about United States policy and the direction of the nation, when we can keep playing an endlessly fascinating game of gotcha?
On the election front, Hillary wouldn’t have it any other way. To paraphrase one of the slogans from her boomer ‘60’s: if it works for her, do it.
Barack Obama doesn’t want to play the same old game. He tried to elevate the conversation from the very start of his campaign, and for a while, it seemed like it might work. But now even he has been put on the defensive and forced into the dumb and dumber trenches. His own missteps like Bittergate haven’t helped nor has the media-hungry Reverend Wright. It’s a shame.
Barack Obama is a member of an elite, not because of his circumstances (he and Michelle only recently paid off their school loans, and are not part of any Presidential dynasty), but because he is asking the American people to rise above all the idiocy. That’s a rare and risky position to take, but he knows nothing will change until we do. Yet, with the media and his Democratic rival hurtling headfirst into the idiotic future, where is the hope? Barack needs to get his groove back and get back on message and above the fray. America needs to listen and follow him out of the muck. We can’t be so dumb as to repeat the same political nonsense over and over again, and expect a different result.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Hit the (High) Road, Hillary
It’s time for Hillary to hit the road. Would someone please tell her?
If Hillary had won the last 11 primaries in a row and was leading in delegates, she would be loudly and proudly directing Barack Obama to bow out. So would the media, the Democratic Party establishment, and everyone else. But the tables are turned. Why isn’t anyone calling for Hillary to call it quits? Hillary’s sense of entitlement to the Presidency seems to have been shared by those covering this election, as well as by her insider pals in the Democratic Party, many of whom crowned her the inevitable candidate before any votes were cast.
Despite Barack Obama’s soaring popularity and winning streak, the election is still presented as Hillary’s to win. As a commentator on Michael Baisden’s radio show recently observed, Obama’s wins have been viewed by the media through the lens of “Let’s see what Hillary needs to do to beat him now,” rather than as the well deserved victories of a front-runner. It is telling that Hillary is unwilling to make concession speeches when she loses. She’s so obviously annoyed that Obama is still around, crashing what was supposed to be her party. Desperate to save what she sees as rightfully hers, she’s tearing him down as best she can – you remember, the “fun part.”
There are two potential outcomes to this strategy. One possibility is that Obama emerges as the Democratic nominee, and Hillary has to support him after her negative campaigning has dinged him up for the general election (Hillary will presumably flip-flop and concede that Obama will be ready enough on Day 1). The other possibility is that Hillary will win the nomination with her party insiders and her stone-throwing, and thousands of disillusioned Americans will go back to what they were doing before they found a candidate who could inspire them. These are not desirable outcomes for the Democratic Party or for America. But Hillary doesn’t see it that way, and neither do her followers and surrogates.
Former Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro asserts in Monday’s New York Times that the super-delegates should lead the Democratic Party in determining its nominee and not follow the will of the voters to Obama. She argues that Obama has won states where the primaries were open to more than Democrats – Republicans and Independents voted for him too! – and that this diminishes the significance of his victories in those contests. Party loyalists and insiders, she claims, are better suited to choose the Democratic nominee.
This argument is reminiscent of Hillary’s reaction to Obama winning Kansas and other so-called “red states.” Hillary’s campaign argued that since those states will never vote blue, Obama’s victories mean little. Last time I checked, the Democratic Party has a 50-state strategy under Howard Dean’s leadership (someone who knows something about inspiring young voters and being quashed by the party establishment). Apparently Hillary and her gang didn’t get the memo. Obama’s ability to reach Republican and independent voters may very well be what clinches the general election for him. It’s not a weakness that he can attract these voters in the primary and win in red states – it’s a major strength that Hillary (despite her gung-ho vote for war) will never have.
Ms. Ferraro also notes that her Presidential ticket lost in 1984, but “that loss had nothing to do with Democratic Party infighting.” The next loss might. Hillary’s supporters will argue that she still has a fighting chance, she’s still leading in Ohio where we vote next week, and she’s neck and neck in Texas. If Hillary ekes out a victory in one or both states, will she take that as a mandate that she is now America’s candidate? The map of Obama’s victories suggests otherwise.
It is becoming clear to more and more people that Obama is a candidate who will lead the party, and eventually the nation, with vision, intelligence, character, and class. He’s a candidate who can win over voters in the middle and even on the right. The country is coming together around a remarkable leader, but it’s not Hillary. That doesn’t discount her intelligence and capabilities (although I question the experience by osmosis argument), but she is not the leader we need, right here, right now. It’s her time to bow out gracefully and offer Senator Obama her full support. If she’s truly in this race for her country and not for herself, it’s time for Hillary to show it and take the high road – home.
If Hillary had won the last 11 primaries in a row and was leading in delegates, she would be loudly and proudly directing Barack Obama to bow out. So would the media, the Democratic Party establishment, and everyone else. But the tables are turned. Why isn’t anyone calling for Hillary to call it quits? Hillary’s sense of entitlement to the Presidency seems to have been shared by those covering this election, as well as by her insider pals in the Democratic Party, many of whom crowned her the inevitable candidate before any votes were cast.
Despite Barack Obama’s soaring popularity and winning streak, the election is still presented as Hillary’s to win. As a commentator on Michael Baisden’s radio show recently observed, Obama’s wins have been viewed by the media through the lens of “Let’s see what Hillary needs to do to beat him now,” rather than as the well deserved victories of a front-runner. It is telling that Hillary is unwilling to make concession speeches when she loses. She’s so obviously annoyed that Obama is still around, crashing what was supposed to be her party. Desperate to save what she sees as rightfully hers, she’s tearing him down as best she can – you remember, the “fun part.”
There are two potential outcomes to this strategy. One possibility is that Obama emerges as the Democratic nominee, and Hillary has to support him after her negative campaigning has dinged him up for the general election (Hillary will presumably flip-flop and concede that Obama will be ready enough on Day 1). The other possibility is that Hillary will win the nomination with her party insiders and her stone-throwing, and thousands of disillusioned Americans will go back to what they were doing before they found a candidate who could inspire them. These are not desirable outcomes for the Democratic Party or for America. But Hillary doesn’t see it that way, and neither do her followers and surrogates.
Former Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro asserts in Monday’s New York Times that the super-delegates should lead the Democratic Party in determining its nominee and not follow the will of the voters to Obama. She argues that Obama has won states where the primaries were open to more than Democrats – Republicans and Independents voted for him too! – and that this diminishes the significance of his victories in those contests. Party loyalists and insiders, she claims, are better suited to choose the Democratic nominee.
This argument is reminiscent of Hillary’s reaction to Obama winning Kansas and other so-called “red states.” Hillary’s campaign argued that since those states will never vote blue, Obama’s victories mean little. Last time I checked, the Democratic Party has a 50-state strategy under Howard Dean’s leadership (someone who knows something about inspiring young voters and being quashed by the party establishment). Apparently Hillary and her gang didn’t get the memo. Obama’s ability to reach Republican and independent voters may very well be what clinches the general election for him. It’s not a weakness that he can attract these voters in the primary and win in red states – it’s a major strength that Hillary (despite her gung-ho vote for war) will never have.
Ms. Ferraro also notes that her Presidential ticket lost in 1984, but “that loss had nothing to do with Democratic Party infighting.” The next loss might. Hillary’s supporters will argue that she still has a fighting chance, she’s still leading in Ohio where we vote next week, and she’s neck and neck in Texas. If Hillary ekes out a victory in one or both states, will she take that as a mandate that she is now America’s candidate? The map of Obama’s victories suggests otherwise.
It is becoming clear to more and more people that Obama is a candidate who will lead the party, and eventually the nation, with vision, intelligence, character, and class. He’s a candidate who can win over voters in the middle and even on the right. The country is coming together around a remarkable leader, but it’s not Hillary. That doesn’t discount her intelligence and capabilities (although I question the experience by osmosis argument), but she is not the leader we need, right here, right now. It’s her time to bow out gracefully and offer Senator Obama her full support. If she’s truly in this race for her country and not for herself, it’s time for Hillary to show it and take the high road – home.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Rant On
Everybody’s got a rant. Just probe a little, and you’ll see.
Mine is NPR. Despite fitting the NPR profile to a T, I can’t stand the stuff. Bong bong bong, here’s a poem about a dead leaf. Great, here’s some jazz – oh, sorry, that was just the introduction to another poem about a dead leaf. On my foot. In winter.
Of course, that’s unfair. NPR is a venerable institution. I read many of the same interesting stories in the New York Times, so I don’t feel deprived when my husband tells me about all those fascinating “driveway moments.” But my friends are always amused to elicit my NPR rant, especially among Diane Rheem devotees, who seem to be multiplying by the minute.
My friend Bethany hates jazz. I am sure there is a rant there, but I haven’t heard all of it – probably because she knows I love jazz, though I too dislike that doodly doodly imitation Coltrane stuff, and please don’t tease me with jazz as an introduction to the world news on NPR.
My sister-in-law Alyssa has a great rant. We call it The Cake Rant. It is all about how at birthday parties, graduation parties, and baby showers, everyone raves about the store-bought cake with the lardy super-sweet frosting, but actually this cake is horrible. If you have ever had homemade cake with real homemade frosting with butter and sugar, this store cake is not even close, the worst stuff ever, and she just wants to shout that the emperor has no clothes and this cake is terrible, what are you all raving for!
I just discovered my husband’s secret rant is about key lime pie. Maybe there is something in his family about food and rants, what with the cake rant and now the key lime pie rant. Just get him going. What is the big deal about key limes? Why is this on every menu, even if you’re not in Florida? Who wants a sour pie anyway?
It is a fine line between having a nice therapeutic rant every now and then and becoming a crackpot with a rant a minute. Sometimes politics make some of us feel like ranting non-stop, and about issues that are more pressing than taste in cake and radio stations. The key is to pace yourself, stick to what’s most important, and not rant about everything. It’s like the Boy Who Cried Wolf – is that you, complaining again?
In a political question and answer session, there is always a ranter who turns his question into a ten minute manifesto, as the rest of the audience groans and checks their watches. Then there are the well-meaning folks who speak publicly on an issue – but then misspeak on something big, like race or religion – and everyone feels for them that a public rant was perhaps not the best way to go.
But there is something comforting about a nice private rant among friends, like sharing a secret. Make some cake. Bring on the rants. What gets to you?
Mine is NPR. Despite fitting the NPR profile to a T, I can’t stand the stuff. Bong bong bong, here’s a poem about a dead leaf. Great, here’s some jazz – oh, sorry, that was just the introduction to another poem about a dead leaf. On my foot. In winter.
Of course, that’s unfair. NPR is a venerable institution. I read many of the same interesting stories in the New York Times, so I don’t feel deprived when my husband tells me about all those fascinating “driveway moments.” But my friends are always amused to elicit my NPR rant, especially among Diane Rheem devotees, who seem to be multiplying by the minute.
My friend Bethany hates jazz. I am sure there is a rant there, but I haven’t heard all of it – probably because she knows I love jazz, though I too dislike that doodly doodly imitation Coltrane stuff, and please don’t tease me with jazz as an introduction to the world news on NPR.
My sister-in-law Alyssa has a great rant. We call it The Cake Rant. It is all about how at birthday parties, graduation parties, and baby showers, everyone raves about the store-bought cake with the lardy super-sweet frosting, but actually this cake is horrible. If you have ever had homemade cake with real homemade frosting with butter and sugar, this store cake is not even close, the worst stuff ever, and she just wants to shout that the emperor has no clothes and this cake is terrible, what are you all raving for!
I just discovered my husband’s secret rant is about key lime pie. Maybe there is something in his family about food and rants, what with the cake rant and now the key lime pie rant. Just get him going. What is the big deal about key limes? Why is this on every menu, even if you’re not in Florida? Who wants a sour pie anyway?
It is a fine line between having a nice therapeutic rant every now and then and becoming a crackpot with a rant a minute. Sometimes politics make some of us feel like ranting non-stop, and about issues that are more pressing than taste in cake and radio stations. The key is to pace yourself, stick to what’s most important, and not rant about everything. It’s like the Boy Who Cried Wolf – is that you, complaining again?
In a political question and answer session, there is always a ranter who turns his question into a ten minute manifesto, as the rest of the audience groans and checks their watches. Then there are the well-meaning folks who speak publicly on an issue – but then misspeak on something big, like race or religion – and everyone feels for them that a public rant was perhaps not the best way to go.
But there is something comforting about a nice private rant among friends, like sharing a secret. Make some cake. Bring on the rants. What gets to you?
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
What Social Contract?
Do the ends justify the means?
Should we finance health care and the arts by taxing cigarettes? Fund schools with lotteries and casinos? Where’s the sin in a few sin taxes?
With sin taxes, we tax the few in order to benefit everyone else. Convenient, since everyone else no longer expects to pay taxes – at least not higher taxes – to receive the benefits of organized, civilized society: good schools, basic services, fine arts.
Yes, ok, but we’re taxing the bad people, the sinners. Or – in preschool mom parlance – the people who make bad choices. If only those folks would make better, more holy choices – well, they could free themselves of the sin tax. Never mind what happens when everyone quits smoking and stops gambling. Just ignore the socio-economic angle to who smokes the most or buys the most lottery tickets. There will always be sinners, after all, and therefore always sins to tax. At least we never have to raise taxes, not the non-sinning kind, the kind on everyone.
When President Bush recently vetoed an expanded children’s health insurance program, only a few critics of the legislation focused on the proposal’s funding source - an increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes. That adds up to a feel-good something for nothing for non-smokers. The Cuyahoga County arts and culture initiative of 2006 was funded by a cigarette tax. It passed – why not? One of the campaign slogans assured voters, “If you don’t smoke, you won’t pay anything for Issue 18.” We want our arts and culture, but please let the people over there pay for it. The ones huddled in the cloud of smoke.
The Republicans and more than a few co-opted Democrats have drilled into the American people that tax money we pay to the government is still our money, even after we pay it, and we should all get a nice chunk of it back every now and then, preferably close to election time. Liberal is a bad name no one wants to be called. A politician who proposes raising taxes might as well start packing his boxes to go back to the farm.
Whatever happened to the notion of citizens contributing so that the government can ensure good schools, necessary health care, durable infrastructure, strong national defense, a healthy environment, a safe and adequate food supply? The idea that we should contribute to our government in order to reap its benefits is extinct. The social contract was dead in America by the end of the twentieth century.
Americans opting out of their democracy (why bother to vote?) isn’t just about taxes. We can say with certainty that there will never be another military draft. Why should everyone have to fight a war or even think about it or grieve about it, when we have other people to do it for us?
So here we are. As bridges fall, soldiers call home to their families for needed equipment their government fails to supply and return to combat zones for lengthy tours of duty, food contamination scares and toxic toys become commonplace, school levies fail, New Orleans is all but abandoned, children fall ill and families lose everything paying for health care – as all this surrounds us, politicians of all stripes promise to cut taxes so Americans can hold onto more of their money.
To be sure, raising taxes or re-instituting the draft would not alone solve our country’s problems. Far from it. But the idea that every citizen – not just the smokers or the enlisted soldiers – should be invested in our democracy, that there is a mutually beneficial and mutually obligatory social contract between the citizen and his government – must return. If it doesn’t, the future looks bleak indeed.
Should we finance health care and the arts by taxing cigarettes? Fund schools with lotteries and casinos? Where’s the sin in a few sin taxes?
With sin taxes, we tax the few in order to benefit everyone else. Convenient, since everyone else no longer expects to pay taxes – at least not higher taxes – to receive the benefits of organized, civilized society: good schools, basic services, fine arts.
Yes, ok, but we’re taxing the bad people, the sinners. Or – in preschool mom parlance – the people who make bad choices. If only those folks would make better, more holy choices – well, they could free themselves of the sin tax. Never mind what happens when everyone quits smoking and stops gambling. Just ignore the socio-economic angle to who smokes the most or buys the most lottery tickets. There will always be sinners, after all, and therefore always sins to tax. At least we never have to raise taxes, not the non-sinning kind, the kind on everyone.
When President Bush recently vetoed an expanded children’s health insurance program, only a few critics of the legislation focused on the proposal’s funding source - an increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes. That adds up to a feel-good something for nothing for non-smokers. The Cuyahoga County arts and culture initiative of 2006 was funded by a cigarette tax. It passed – why not? One of the campaign slogans assured voters, “If you don’t smoke, you won’t pay anything for Issue 18.” We want our arts and culture, but please let the people over there pay for it. The ones huddled in the cloud of smoke.
The Republicans and more than a few co-opted Democrats have drilled into the American people that tax money we pay to the government is still our money, even after we pay it, and we should all get a nice chunk of it back every now and then, preferably close to election time. Liberal is a bad name no one wants to be called. A politician who proposes raising taxes might as well start packing his boxes to go back to the farm.
Whatever happened to the notion of citizens contributing so that the government can ensure good schools, necessary health care, durable infrastructure, strong national defense, a healthy environment, a safe and adequate food supply? The idea that we should contribute to our government in order to reap its benefits is extinct. The social contract was dead in America by the end of the twentieth century.
Americans opting out of their democracy (why bother to vote?) isn’t just about taxes. We can say with certainty that there will never be another military draft. Why should everyone have to fight a war or even think about it or grieve about it, when we have other people to do it for us?
So here we are. As bridges fall, soldiers call home to their families for needed equipment their government fails to supply and return to combat zones for lengthy tours of duty, food contamination scares and toxic toys become commonplace, school levies fail, New Orleans is all but abandoned, children fall ill and families lose everything paying for health care – as all this surrounds us, politicians of all stripes promise to cut taxes so Americans can hold onto more of their money.
To be sure, raising taxes or re-instituting the draft would not alone solve our country’s problems. Far from it. But the idea that every citizen – not just the smokers or the enlisted soldiers – should be invested in our democracy, that there is a mutually beneficial and mutually obligatory social contract between the citizen and his government – must return. If it doesn’t, the future looks bleak indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
