Saturday, November 06, 2010
Friday, November 05, 2010
Pessimism is well founded
The pessimism of this election is well-deserved because the no-nothings voted for change again, but they didn't have a clue about what that change would be and they have ensured another two years of economic stagnation and failure.
No distinctions were made regarding politicians, it really didn't matter what they stood for or how they had performed in the past, it only mattered that they were part of the status quo so anyone was else was more desirable.
The people want the politicians to "work together" to solve the very real problems of the country, so they voted in people who have avowed that they will not compromise, they will not work together, that its my way or the highway.
The people want civility in Washington so they vote in some of the most uncivil and almost voted in even worse.
The people want jobs so they voted in people who will not provide jobs, who will not stimulate the economy or future industries that could provide jobs, who will continue the ever-widening gap between rich and the rest, who are likely to shut down the government and engage in witch hunts for secret muslims, and global warming hoaxes, and finding a way to impeach the president and roll back health care for 35 million people [which the CBO says will save money for the government over the next 20 years]. They don't want to improve the health care bill, they want to repeal it, because the idea that health care should be a right not a privilege is socialism.
I realized after 2000 that elections do matter and that someone gets elected no matter what. It is unlikely that any politician will actually change the system that made him or her. It's unlikely that they will ever change the system where money is influence and influence sets much of the agenda. Ralph Nader was right, Gore wouldn't be fundamentally different that Bush. He was a representative of the powers that be and he would not significantly change those powers. However, that said, change does occur on the margins. We would not have unnecessarily invaded Iraq and spent almost 3T dollars had Gore been elected. We would not have spent another 8 years denying climate change was real and starting to actually tackle the same energy crisis that Jimmy Carter warned about in 1979. We might have had eight years of research into treatments and cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Would the financial crisis that hit in 2008 have happened. It's likely since the causes were set in motion 30 years ago with the deregulatory fever that gripped the nation with Reagan's ascendance. It's likely because Alan Greenspan would still have failed to see the flaw in his economic theory and popped the housing bubble before it became an F5 tornado. But on the margins, our lives would have been better.
The same is true in 2010. A Democratic Congress would not have ended world hunger, put a chicken in every pot, fundamentally changed the broken election system or the broken financial system. The Democrats are too beholden to special interest to fundamentally challenge the powers that run the world, but they would have continued unemployment benefits, they might have made infrastructure spending a priority, they might have moved us towards a better energy future, they might have made real improvements in education in this country. These are where the margins meet people. Instead, we have rewarded the obstruction and nastiness of the Republican minority, we have told them their efforts at bringing down the President and hurting the economy have worked for them politically, so why should they change. I believe that most politicians aren't really in this job for the good of the country, its for themselves. We just showed the GOP that the best chance they have for 2012 is more of the same no matter how bad it might be for the no-nothings who vote, because a bad economy in 2012 is their best chance of winning politically.
I keep saying, I'm glad I won't live to see the results of these destructive policies, but unfortunately, I will see the slow decline in that direction. Ten years ago, it was widely believed that we had reached the end of history. Boy were we wrong. It appears like we are heading for the BRIC century, where unfettered capitalism wins, and political freedom is just another phrase for nothing else to lose.
No distinctions were made regarding politicians, it really didn't matter what they stood for or how they had performed in the past, it only mattered that they were part of the status quo so anyone was else was more desirable.
The people want the politicians to "work together" to solve the very real problems of the country, so they voted in people who have avowed that they will not compromise, they will not work together, that its my way or the highway.
The people want civility in Washington so they vote in some of the most uncivil and almost voted in even worse.
The people want jobs so they voted in people who will not provide jobs, who will not stimulate the economy or future industries that could provide jobs, who will continue the ever-widening gap between rich and the rest, who are likely to shut down the government and engage in witch hunts for secret muslims, and global warming hoaxes, and finding a way to impeach the president and roll back health care for 35 million people [which the CBO says will save money for the government over the next 20 years]. They don't want to improve the health care bill, they want to repeal it, because the idea that health care should be a right not a privilege is socialism.
I realized after 2000 that elections do matter and that someone gets elected no matter what. It is unlikely that any politician will actually change the system that made him or her. It's unlikely that they will ever change the system where money is influence and influence sets much of the agenda. Ralph Nader was right, Gore wouldn't be fundamentally different that Bush. He was a representative of the powers that be and he would not significantly change those powers. However, that said, change does occur on the margins. We would not have unnecessarily invaded Iraq and spent almost 3T dollars had Gore been elected. We would not have spent another 8 years denying climate change was real and starting to actually tackle the same energy crisis that Jimmy Carter warned about in 1979. We might have had eight years of research into treatments and cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Would the financial crisis that hit in 2008 have happened. It's likely since the causes were set in motion 30 years ago with the deregulatory fever that gripped the nation with Reagan's ascendance. It's likely because Alan Greenspan would still have failed to see the flaw in his economic theory and popped the housing bubble before it became an F5 tornado. But on the margins, our lives would have been better.
The same is true in 2010. A Democratic Congress would not have ended world hunger, put a chicken in every pot, fundamentally changed the broken election system or the broken financial system. The Democrats are too beholden to special interest to fundamentally challenge the powers that run the world, but they would have continued unemployment benefits, they might have made infrastructure spending a priority, they might have moved us towards a better energy future, they might have made real improvements in education in this country. These are where the margins meet people. Instead, we have rewarded the obstruction and nastiness of the Republican minority, we have told them their efforts at bringing down the President and hurting the economy have worked for them politically, so why should they change. I believe that most politicians aren't really in this job for the good of the country, its for themselves. We just showed the GOP that the best chance they have for 2012 is more of the same no matter how bad it might be for the no-nothings who vote, because a bad economy in 2012 is their best chance of winning politically.
I keep saying, I'm glad I won't live to see the results of these destructive policies, but unfortunately, I will see the slow decline in that direction. Ten years ago, it was widely believed that we had reached the end of history. Boy were we wrong. It appears like we are heading for the BRIC century, where unfettered capitalism wins, and political freedom is just another phrase for nothing else to lose.
Dear Jon Stewart
It's been a week since your rally and a few days since the election. I keep trying to understand what you were saying and what the election is saying, but I keep coming up empty. Your rally attacked the news media and entertained folks and was a small feel good moment of a picnic on the mall, but that's about all. I found your false equivalency between Fox and the rest of the media, especially MSNBC disheartening and demoralizing. I've tried to analyze why I see this mess differently since I've always appreciated your show for its political satire and calling out the emperor.
We have three types of [electronic] media reporting in the country. One is opinion media, one is straight news and the other is infotainment. In the opinion media, we have FOX and right wing radio, MSNBC and everyone else. The major difference between FOX and MSNBC in my mind, besides size, is that FOX's right wing opinions are generally not based in fact, or if facts are involved and don't support their position, they just make something up. MSNBC generally has a liberal point of view, but most of their opinions seem grounded in facts. When they make a factual error, they usually correct it on the air. Yes, they get carried away and rant and rave now and again, but most of their shows are a dissection of opinion and fact. Now of course there are lies, damned lies and statistics so there will be disagreements about some of those facts, but in general they can be validated, even when you disagree with the conclusions the hosts have made based on those facts.
With CNN primetime you also is opinion media, its just that it's everyones' opinions sprinkled with some facts. You rightly pointed out the dozens of analysts on election night. What does that sort of political journalism do for anyone? It's chaos. All these folks talking over each other, and no one mediating the truth or the facts. You then have PBS, our high brow news, which when it comes to political journalism or more fightening almost any controversial issue, does basically what CNN does, except with a little more decorum. On one show, they might have Dick Armey or Tom DeLay, David Brooks or David Gerson, and some "lefty" analyst. Each says what they think from their point of view and you the viewer can decide which one was more persuasive or likeable. Occasionally you have dueling experts - a climate change advocate and a climate change denier - full equivalency no matter the subject. No one vets these folks or challenges their facts for the most part - they are just allowed or encourage to have their say. No analysis of the facts are provided in any straightforward way, just you decide who you like better. PBS actually doesn't do this when it comes to health issues, or education issues, or even some financial issues, they actually try to educate the viewer to the issue and present different solutions for their consideration, but only the low passion stuff gets this treatment. These they treat as issues which can be explained, facts which can be presented and sometimes even cause and effect and alternative solutions.
Can't quit without discussing the network media. They provide 17 minutes of news every night. Most of its is presented in 1-2 minute segments in a fairly straighforward journalistic manner. For the last several years, they have reserved at least 1-3 minutes of this airtime for the positive story - something uplifting, heartwarming, optimistic or the like, basically leaving less than 15 minutes a day to cover real news like war in Afghanistan, terror attacks in Europe, the stock market, political shenanigans in Congress or the administration, and crime and corruption in America and elsewhere. The local news picks up a little of the slack, especially on the crime and corruption, but most local news outside the really big cities is really bad and uninformative.
Finally, you have the infotainment news which covers Hollywood, dead celebrities, reality tv stars, criminals, Chilean miners, natural and man-made disasters, and missing teenagers in Aruba or Utah. This is, of course, the highest rated news on TV.
The interesting thing is that most people in America for the most part don't listen to any of this news. They prefer sports, reality tv, dramadey and other mindless crap exposes. We are generally a nation of morons who get to vote periodically and make those decisions based on negative tv ads and as Stephen Colbert would say their gut! The gut knows. Jay Leno used to demonstrate this regularly on the Jay Walk Allstars. I always thought this segment must have taken hours of video to put together since I was sure they had to look for these idiots who were so proud of their no-nothing knowledge of news. However, I saw an interview with Jay, where he indicated he became demoralized about the segment because it was so easy. It seldom took more than 15 minutes or so to find the people who were showcased. How sad is that.
All this to say, what do you want? What solutions do you have? Do you really think that there should be no counterpoint to FOX's distortions and lies? Maybe having a counterpoint is counterproductive, but it really feels better that someone describes what is going on there, that someone says what is going on there. To stop is just unilateral disarmament. Only FOX and Rush and Glenn and Michael Savage, and all the rest of the hate mongers. Do you really feel that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann or Lawrence O'Donnell belong in this same category just because they present a point of view? No politician is bragging about having them in their pocket, or how they can use them to get their message out. Further, the main reason that their programs are so one-sided is because most of the conservative politicians and the spokespeople won't even go on the shows because they know, that unlike FOX they might actually have to explain their positions or answer some of those pesky questions Sharron Angle promised to answer WHEN she was Senator. Guess we'll never know now.
So please, tell us what you think will fix the news because I don't see any answers on the horizon but I do see MSNBC as a little counterweight to the overwhelming force of FOX and friends in the political morass we are in.
We have three types of [electronic] media reporting in the country. One is opinion media, one is straight news and the other is infotainment. In the opinion media, we have FOX and right wing radio, MSNBC and everyone else. The major difference between FOX and MSNBC in my mind, besides size, is that FOX's right wing opinions are generally not based in fact, or if facts are involved and don't support their position, they just make something up. MSNBC generally has a liberal point of view, but most of their opinions seem grounded in facts. When they make a factual error, they usually correct it on the air. Yes, they get carried away and rant and rave now and again, but most of their shows are a dissection of opinion and fact. Now of course there are lies, damned lies and statistics so there will be disagreements about some of those facts, but in general they can be validated, even when you disagree with the conclusions the hosts have made based on those facts.
With CNN primetime you also is opinion media, its just that it's everyones' opinions sprinkled with some facts. You rightly pointed out the dozens of analysts on election night. What does that sort of political journalism do for anyone? It's chaos. All these folks talking over each other, and no one mediating the truth or the facts. You then have PBS, our high brow news, which when it comes to political journalism or more fightening almost any controversial issue, does basically what CNN does, except with a little more decorum. On one show, they might have Dick Armey or Tom DeLay, David Brooks or David Gerson, and some "lefty" analyst. Each says what they think from their point of view and you the viewer can decide which one was more persuasive or likeable. Occasionally you have dueling experts - a climate change advocate and a climate change denier - full equivalency no matter the subject. No one vets these folks or challenges their facts for the most part - they are just allowed or encourage to have their say. No analysis of the facts are provided in any straightforward way, just you decide who you like better. PBS actually doesn't do this when it comes to health issues, or education issues, or even some financial issues, they actually try to educate the viewer to the issue and present different solutions for their consideration, but only the low passion stuff gets this treatment. These they treat as issues which can be explained, facts which can be presented and sometimes even cause and effect and alternative solutions.
Can't quit without discussing the network media. They provide 17 minutes of news every night. Most of its is presented in 1-2 minute segments in a fairly straighforward journalistic manner. For the last several years, they have reserved at least 1-3 minutes of this airtime for the positive story - something uplifting, heartwarming, optimistic or the like, basically leaving less than 15 minutes a day to cover real news like war in Afghanistan, terror attacks in Europe, the stock market, political shenanigans in Congress or the administration, and crime and corruption in America and elsewhere. The local news picks up a little of the slack, especially on the crime and corruption, but most local news outside the really big cities is really bad and uninformative.
Finally, you have the infotainment news which covers Hollywood, dead celebrities, reality tv stars, criminals, Chilean miners, natural and man-made disasters, and missing teenagers in Aruba or Utah. This is, of course, the highest rated news on TV.
The interesting thing is that most people in America for the most part don't listen to any of this news. They prefer sports, reality tv, dramadey and other mindless crap exposes. We are generally a nation of morons who get to vote periodically and make those decisions based on negative tv ads and as Stephen Colbert would say their gut! The gut knows. Jay Leno used to demonstrate this regularly on the Jay Walk Allstars. I always thought this segment must have taken hours of video to put together since I was sure they had to look for these idiots who were so proud of their no-nothing knowledge of news. However, I saw an interview with Jay, where he indicated he became demoralized about the segment because it was so easy. It seldom took more than 15 minutes or so to find the people who were showcased. How sad is that.
All this to say, what do you want? What solutions do you have? Do you really think that there should be no counterpoint to FOX's distortions and lies? Maybe having a counterpoint is counterproductive, but it really feels better that someone describes what is going on there, that someone says what is going on there. To stop is just unilateral disarmament. Only FOX and Rush and Glenn and Michael Savage, and all the rest of the hate mongers. Do you really feel that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann or Lawrence O'Donnell belong in this same category just because they present a point of view? No politician is bragging about having them in their pocket, or how they can use them to get their message out. Further, the main reason that their programs are so one-sided is because most of the conservative politicians and the spokespeople won't even go on the shows because they know, that unlike FOX they might actually have to explain their positions or answer some of those pesky questions Sharron Angle promised to answer WHEN she was Senator. Guess we'll never know now.
So please, tell us what you think will fix the news because I don't see any answers on the horizon but I do see MSNBC as a little counterweight to the overwhelming force of FOX and friends in the political morass we are in.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
A Pox on Your House
I expected it but I hoped against it, but my expectations were met and exceeded. It's unfortunate, but many of the people who voted in protest against big government and health care will get what they voted for and so much more. Gridlocked government at a time that calls for bold action and a very unpleasant and partisan witch hunt on Capitol Hill for the boogeymen in Obama's administration. Impeachment hearings anyone? The red scare is on among many who were elected -- following Glenn Beck and Faux News they will hold hearings and demand the czars explain themselves. They will extend the tax cuts, [which the weasely Dems will jump on board with] causing further damage to the debt and deficit without providing any of the stimulus or demand that the country so desperately needs. More than ever, the corporate interests will rule -- while I doubt that many rules, except perhaps the clean air ones [Murkowski's pet project], will be rolled back, there will be no improvements on food or drug safety, oil or mine safety, biomedical research, alternative energy, or climate change, among others. The long slow decline of American jobs will continue as the incentives to not keep jobs here won't be repealed. The gap between rich and poor will widen and our infrastructure will crumble. I can go on, but why bother. The American people are ignorant of what goes on - they follow Dancing with the Stars much more closely than the people running for office, they are helpless and hopeless so they strike out in anger, which only makes things worse.
I have to remind myself that I am not worse off personally, although the value of my house will likely decline further, I can afford my payments, and don't have to sell and I'm not in the bottom 95% of the economic ladder. Any negative changes or lack of change will affect others far more than myself, so I need to adopt the mindset of so many others - hear no evil, see no evil.... It isn't the end of the world and this too shall pass, but its sad that so many people will suffer [although clearly many of them have wrought this themselves with their vote or lack of one] and times do not bode well for the American Experiment in the long run - but alas, at least I won't live long enough to see the really awful results. I do hope this does not mean we will go to war in any other countries for a while.
I have to remind myself that I am not worse off personally, although the value of my house will likely decline further, I can afford my payments, and don't have to sell and I'm not in the bottom 95% of the economic ladder. Any negative changes or lack of change will affect others far more than myself, so I need to adopt the mindset of so many others - hear no evil, see no evil.... It isn't the end of the world and this too shall pass, but its sad that so many people will suffer [although clearly many of them have wrought this themselves with their vote or lack of one] and times do not bode well for the American Experiment in the long run - but alas, at least I won't live long enough to see the really awful results. I do hope this does not mean we will go to war in any other countries for a while.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Ask America
Wow, am I depressed. I thought the election was the bottom of my unhappiness, but so many of the results in this ask america poll are even more disheartening. Significant majorities actually believe the Dems are more partisan, that is doesn't matter whether Dems or Rep are in power for the economy, that war til victory, even where there is no likelihood is basically hooray, that the tea party is here to stay. I could go on, but you should see for yourself. Much is contradictory - majorities for a trade war with China but against government protecting workers and jobs, majorities for civility but against compromise. There does appear to be a green streak still alive and homophobia is definitely on the decline. People believe the immigrants as bogeyman and this notion that they broke the law so no quarter. And nothing seems to be informed by events, facts or history.
askamerica.yahoo.com/
askamerica.yahoo.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)