Bravo. Well said. So why do we settle for this?
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/the-unraveling-of-government/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120928
THE EVERYDAY PEOPLE PROJECT Making Our Way In A New America
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, September 28, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Why Does Political Debate Feel Like War?
One of the better analyses I've read - dispassionate, rational, even-handed. March 18 NY Times. Reprinted here in its entirety.
Clockwise, from top left: Eric Thayer for The New York Time; Daniel Borris for The New York Times; Joe Raedle, via Getty Images; Joe Raedle, via Getty Images
In the film version of “All the President’s Men,” when Robert Redford, playing the journalist Bob Woodward, is struggling to unravel the Watergate conspiracy, an anonymous source advises him to “follow the money.” It’s a good rule of thumb for understanding the behavior of politicians. But following the money leads you astray if you’re trying to understand voters.
Self-interest, political scientists have found, is a surprisingly weak predictor of people’s views on specific issues. Parents of children in public school are not more supportive of government aid to schools than other citizens. People without health insurance are not more likely to favor government-provided health insurance than are people who are fully insured.
Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes.
The key to understanding tribal behavior is not money, it’s sacredness. The great trick that humans developed at some point in the last few hundred thousand years is the ability to circle around a tree, rock, ancestor, flag, book or god, and then treat that thing as sacred. People who worship the same idol can trust one another, work as a team and prevail over less cohesive groups. So if you want to understand politics, and especially our divisive culture wars, you must follow the sacredness.
A good way to follow the sacredness is to listen to the stories that each tribe tells about itself and the larger nation. The Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith once summarized the moral narrative told by the American left like this: “Once upon a time, the vast majority” of people suffered in societies that were “unjust, unhealthy, repressive and oppressive.” These societies were “reprehensible because of their deep-rooted inequality, exploitation and irrational traditionalism — all of which made life very unfair, unpleasant and short. But the noble human aspiration for autonomy, equality and prosperity struggled mightily against the forces of misery and oppression and eventually succeeded in establishing modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist, welfare societies.” Despite our progress, “there is much work to be done to dismantle the powerful vestiges of inequality, exploitation and repression.” This struggle, as Smith put it, “is the one mission truly worth dedicating one’s life to achieving.”
This is a heroic liberation narrative. For the American left, African-Americans, women and other victimized groups are the sacred objects at the center of the story. As liberals circle around these groups, they bond together and gain a sense of righteous common purpose.
Contrast that narrative with one that Ronald Reagan developed in the 1970s and ’80s for conservatism. The clinical psychologist Drew Westen summarized the Reagan narrative like this: “Once upon a time, America was a shining beacon. Then liberals came along and erected an enormous federal bureaucracy that handcuffed the invisible hand of the free market. They subverted our traditional American values and opposed God and faith at every step of the way.” For example, “instead of requiring that people work for a living, they siphoned money from hard-working Americans and gave it to Cadillac-driving drug addicts and welfare queens.” Instead of the “traditional American values of family, fidelity and personal responsibility, they preached promiscuity, premarital sex and the gay lifestyle” and instead of “projecting strength to those who would do evil around the world, they cut military budgets, disrespected our soldiers in uniform and burned our flag.” In response, “Americans decided to take their country back from those who sought to undermine it.”
This, too, is a heroic narrative, but it’s a heroism of defense. In this narrative it’s God and country that are sacred — hence the importance in conservative iconography of the Bible, the flag, the military and the founding fathers. But the subtext in this narrative is about moral order. For social conservatives, religion and the traditional family are so important in part because they foster self-control, create moral order and fend off chaos. (Think of Rick Santorum’s comment that birth control is bad because it’s “a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”) Liberals are the devil in this narrative because they want to destroy or subvert all sources of moral order.
Actually, there’s a second subtext in the Reagan narrative in which liberty is the sacred object. Circling around liberty would seem, on its face, to be more consistent with liberalism and its many liberation movements than with social conservatism. But here’s where narrative analysis really helps. Part of Reagan’s political genius was that he told a single story about America that rallied libertarians and social conservatives, who are otherwise strange bedfellows. He did this by presenting liberal activist government as the single devil that is eternally bent on destroying two different sets of sacred values — economic liberty and moral order. Only if all nonliberals unite into a coalition of tribes can this devil be defeated.
If you follow the sacredness, you can understand some of the weirdness of the last few months in politics. In January, the Obama administration announced that religiously affiliated hospitals and other institutions must offer health plans that provide free contraception to their members. It’s one thing for the government to insist that people have a right to buy a product that their employer abhors. But it’s a rather direct act of sacrilege (for many Christians) for the government to force religious institutions to pay for that product. The outraged reaction galvanized the Christian right and gave a lift to Rick Santorum’s campaign.
AROUND this time, bills were making their way through state legislatures requiring that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound before they can have an abortion. It’s one thing for a state government to make abortions harder to get (as with a waiting period). But it’s a rather direct act of sacrilege (for nearly all liberals as well as libertarians) for a state to force a doctor to insert a probe into a woman’s vagina. The outraged reaction galvanized the secular left and gave a lift to President Obama.
This is why we’ve seen the sudden re-emergence of the older culture war — the one between the religious right and the secular left that raged for so many years before the financial crisis and the rise of the Tea Party. When sacred objects are threatened, we can expect a ferocious tribal response. The right perceives a “war on Christianity” and gears up for a holy war. The left perceives a “war on women” and gears up for, well, a holy war.
The timing could hardly be worse. America faces multiple threats and challenges, many of which will require each side to accept a “grand bargain” that imposes, at the very least, painful compromises on core economic values. But when your opponent is the devil, bargaining and compromise are themselves forms of sacrilege.
Jonathan Haidt is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and a visiting professor of business ethics at N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business. Parts of this essay were excerpted from “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” which was just released.
Forget the Money, Follow the Sacredness
By JONATHAN HAIDTClockwise, from top left: Eric Thayer for The New York Time; Daniel Borris for The New York Times; Joe Raedle, via Getty Images; Joe Raedle, via Getty Images Groups circle around a flag, an idea, a leader or a cause and treat it as sacred.
Self-interest, political scientists have found, is a surprisingly weak predictor of people’s views on specific issues. Parents of children in public school are not more supportive of government aid to schools than other citizens. People without health insurance are not more likely to favor government-provided health insurance than are people who are fully insured.
Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes.
The key to understanding tribal behavior is not money, it’s sacredness. The great trick that humans developed at some point in the last few hundred thousand years is the ability to circle around a tree, rock, ancestor, flag, book or god, and then treat that thing as sacred. People who worship the same idol can trust one another, work as a team and prevail over less cohesive groups. So if you want to understand politics, and especially our divisive culture wars, you must follow the sacredness.
A good way to follow the sacredness is to listen to the stories that each tribe tells about itself and the larger nation. The Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith once summarized the moral narrative told by the American left like this: “Once upon a time, the vast majority” of people suffered in societies that were “unjust, unhealthy, repressive and oppressive.” These societies were “reprehensible because of their deep-rooted inequality, exploitation and irrational traditionalism — all of which made life very unfair, unpleasant and short. But the noble human aspiration for autonomy, equality and prosperity struggled mightily against the forces of misery and oppression and eventually succeeded in establishing modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist, welfare societies.” Despite our progress, “there is much work to be done to dismantle the powerful vestiges of inequality, exploitation and repression.” This struggle, as Smith put it, “is the one mission truly worth dedicating one’s life to achieving.”
This is a heroic liberation narrative. For the American left, African-Americans, women and other victimized groups are the sacred objects at the center of the story. As liberals circle around these groups, they bond together and gain a sense of righteous common purpose.
Contrast that narrative with one that Ronald Reagan developed in the 1970s and ’80s for conservatism. The clinical psychologist Drew Westen summarized the Reagan narrative like this: “Once upon a time, America was a shining beacon. Then liberals came along and erected an enormous federal bureaucracy that handcuffed the invisible hand of the free market. They subverted our traditional American values and opposed God and faith at every step of the way.” For example, “instead of requiring that people work for a living, they siphoned money from hard-working Americans and gave it to Cadillac-driving drug addicts and welfare queens.” Instead of the “traditional American values of family, fidelity and personal responsibility, they preached promiscuity, premarital sex and the gay lifestyle” and instead of “projecting strength to those who would do evil around the world, they cut military budgets, disrespected our soldiers in uniform and burned our flag.” In response, “Americans decided to take their country back from those who sought to undermine it.”
This, too, is a heroic narrative, but it’s a heroism of defense. In this narrative it’s God and country that are sacred — hence the importance in conservative iconography of the Bible, the flag, the military and the founding fathers. But the subtext in this narrative is about moral order. For social conservatives, religion and the traditional family are so important in part because they foster self-control, create moral order and fend off chaos. (Think of Rick Santorum’s comment that birth control is bad because it’s “a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”) Liberals are the devil in this narrative because they want to destroy or subvert all sources of moral order.
Actually, there’s a second subtext in the Reagan narrative in which liberty is the sacred object. Circling around liberty would seem, on its face, to be more consistent with liberalism and its many liberation movements than with social conservatism. But here’s where narrative analysis really helps. Part of Reagan’s political genius was that he told a single story about America that rallied libertarians and social conservatives, who are otherwise strange bedfellows. He did this by presenting liberal activist government as the single devil that is eternally bent on destroying two different sets of sacred values — economic liberty and moral order. Only if all nonliberals unite into a coalition of tribes can this devil be defeated.
If you follow the sacredness, you can understand some of the weirdness of the last few months in politics. In January, the Obama administration announced that religiously affiliated hospitals and other institutions must offer health plans that provide free contraception to their members. It’s one thing for the government to insist that people have a right to buy a product that their employer abhors. But it’s a rather direct act of sacrilege (for many Christians) for the government to force religious institutions to pay for that product. The outraged reaction galvanized the Christian right and gave a lift to Rick Santorum’s campaign.
AROUND this time, bills were making their way through state legislatures requiring that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound before they can have an abortion. It’s one thing for a state government to make abortions harder to get (as with a waiting period). But it’s a rather direct act of sacrilege (for nearly all liberals as well as libertarians) for a state to force a doctor to insert a probe into a woman’s vagina. The outraged reaction galvanized the secular left and gave a lift to President Obama.
This is why we’ve seen the sudden re-emergence of the older culture war — the one between the religious right and the secular left that raged for so many years before the financial crisis and the rise of the Tea Party. When sacred objects are threatened, we can expect a ferocious tribal response. The right perceives a “war on Christianity” and gears up for a holy war. The left perceives a “war on women” and gears up for, well, a holy war.
The timing could hardly be worse. America faces multiple threats and challenges, many of which will require each side to accept a “grand bargain” that imposes, at the very least, painful compromises on core economic values. But when your opponent is the devil, bargaining and compromise are themselves forms of sacrilege.
Jonathan Haidt is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and a visiting professor of business ethics at N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business. Parts of this essay were excerpted from “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” which was just released.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Fair and Balanced?
And the media, which is owned by the same multi-national corporations that control the system, wants to be sure you don't pay any attention to that little man, Ron Paul, who somehow keeps quietly accumulating followers and holding on in the primaries.
Here's today's New York Times Headline: Romney Edges Past Paul in Maine Caucus . He "averted embarrassment", says the first line, by beating Ron Paul by 3%. "Mr. Paul was unbowed, and gave no indication that he would drop out."
I beg your pardon? It would be embarrassing to lose to Ron Paul? The once- assumed GOP candidate loses to Santorum in three states, then finishes just 3% ahead of Paul in Maine, and the question is whether Paul's ready to say "uncle"?
Dear New York Times - time for a little remedial journalism. These headlines would have been objective versions of campaign developments. The copy that followed should have expanded on these themes:
Romney Hangs On to Slim Lead, Paul Is Strong Second in Maine
Maine Rejects Santorum and Gingrich, Pits Romney vs. Paul
As Romney Struggles, Paul Has Strongest Showing Yet
This campaign is a perfect example of what journalism has become. Dana Bash of CNN infamously said, on camera, that many people are worried, as she is, that Ron Paul won't drop out and will weaken the GOP's chances against President Obama in the general election. Ron Paul's supporters are big into YouTube, so you can see it over and over - and see people's reaction. The New York Times says a strong second place finish should be persuading Paul to drop out.
News coverage is not impartial and it is not balanced. It's been a long time since journalists had the goal of finding the truth and reporting it. Corporate ownership and advertising dollars destroyed journalism and now your only hope of at least seeing behind the lies is Jon Stewart - he's the closest thing to a media watchdog we have. After noting the media ignored Ron Paul back in August, he was back to note that nothing had changed a month later.
The media laughed at Ross Perot, hoping American would laugh with them. He scared them to death - he didn't play the game they'd learned to play. Ron Paul is a similar threat. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is stating views that would threaten a solidly entrenched system of corruption. And the media doesn't want you to notice.
Outsmart them. Listen, pay attention, notice how they try to influence what you think, and then think for yourself.
Friday, November 18, 2011
If you're not speaking out, you're not paying attention
Today's story is a farm bill hammered out in secrecy and planned to be slipped into another bill and voted on without debate. That, as I recall, is not how policy is supposed to be made in a democracy. You can read here.
DesMoines Register
The question, to me, is whether I'm willing to take responsibility for knowing what's going on, for educating myself, and for doing something about it. Emails to legislators work. Social media helps spread information. And unless I'm willing to make the effort to be aware and then spread the word, I have no right to complain.
It's hard work. We can't possibly know all that's going on but we can pay attention to what other people reveal. Then comes the harder work - getting educated. Knowing the pros and cons and learning the questions to ask. And next step is to start talking. Bring up whatever concerns we encounter - whether they're the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, the unhealthy impact of mass production and chemicals on our food supply, the inextricable ties between policy makers and big business, the failure of our educational system and the destruction of the middle class.
It's good work. It's essential work.
DesMoines Register
The question, to me, is whether I'm willing to take responsibility for knowing what's going on, for educating myself, and for doing something about it. Emails to legislators work. Social media helps spread information. And unless I'm willing to make the effort to be aware and then spread the word, I have no right to complain.
It's hard work. We can't possibly know all that's going on but we can pay attention to what other people reveal. Then comes the harder work - getting educated. Knowing the pros and cons and learning the questions to ask. And next step is to start talking. Bring up whatever concerns we encounter - whether they're the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, the unhealthy impact of mass production and chemicals on our food supply, the inextricable ties between policy makers and big business, the failure of our educational system and the destruction of the middle class.
It's good work. It's essential work.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
What Bugs Me Is the Meanness
Politics = Partisan. Of course. I'm right, you're wrong. You're totally misguided. You just don't get it.
I get an up-close look at politics every election night. I visit party headquarters for both parties and hear each side rooting for their team. There's certainly a great deal of glee in victory. But what I hate is the nastiness. And it's so unnecessary.
I'm not going to name parties, because the particularly vindictive party here may be the home of rationality somewhere else. No party has a monopoly on mean.
But while I saw interest, even passion at one headquarters last night, I heard zealots on a mission at the other headquarters.
"How'd X do?" I heard.
"X lost."
"Excellent. Y is next."
"W got his ass kicked tonight. He never saw it coming."
"They lost because they haven't figured out what they want to be when they grow up."
"They're crooked - the entire lot of them."
Broad, sweeping statements were made about one candidate after another, people many of these partisans had known since childhood. But because they are now on opposite sides of the political fence, they are mortal enemies, firmly on the side of good or evil with no room for discussion or debate.
I have been told I'm immature by Conservatives who read this blog. "Grow up," they write. I find that a simplistic, dismissive response to a clear-eyed view of a dysfunctional system.
Debate societies used to train students to argue a point of view dispassionately, rationally and with reason. The point of debate was to pile up unassailable arguments that toppled opposing viewpoints by their sheer weight. I'm good with that.
I'm equally okay with open-minded discussions of differences, searched for points of agreement from which some working compromises can be found for fundamental disagreements. Sometimes there is just no winning a debate - sometimes the more important task is to find a way to move forward in a bi-partisan way.
And sometimes, the only way to make progress is to give up the skirmishes that can't be won. The Obama Administration, for instance, has given up trying to convince disbelievers that there is such a thing as climate change. It's become too emotionally loaded. So instead it's concentrating its energy on legislation aimed at encourage renewable, sustainable energy. No mention of climate change or global warming. What's the point if that's what will stop a bill in its tracks?
Last night I saw mean-spirited little kids who acted like their pants were too tight, tearing at their opponents with snarling smiles. If these are our political leaders, our system is shot. If they can label you "bad" because you don't go to their church, if they can call you "evil" because you disagree with them on charged emotional issues, if their strategy is to become the good guys by making everyone who disagrees with them the bad guys, they're the immature ones. And I've got no time for them anymore.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Rain, Paint Fumes and Revolution in the Air
I'm feeling kind of low. The weather doesn't help...hot, muggy and way too wet to be comfortable. I just read Judith O'Reilly's latest entry on wifeinthenorth.com
and felt worse. She's apparently getting shit online from people jealous of her success. What the hell is wrong with humanity? If one of us makes good, the rest of us have to pick her apart so we can feel better about ourselves. Low low low. Little brains.
Then there's my personal fallout from the first presidential debate. Nice of John McCain to show up. I watched it all. I watched the little 'mood meter' running as each candidate spoke. The independents (green) made nice new colors when their reactions blended with the red or the blue lines. And I realized that our debate system is dirt stupid, and nothing that was said that night is likely to change anyone's mind.
Obama, if you like him, held his own. He was in control, he knew his stuff, he didn't attack but he didn't sit back and leave attacks unanswered. McCain, if you like him, played the "I've been around longer than you" card nicely, frequently pointing out that Senator Obama, as he consistently called him, "didn't understand."
There was one moment that made my night. Remember when McCain tossed out a comment that Obama didn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy? I watch people closely. And if you watched Obama, his eyes flashed. This, apparently, is where Obama draws the line: don't question his intelligence. He didn't lose control, but he caught fire and I was glad to see it. We need someone at the helm who can get angry but keep his head. Obama is often far too even tempered. I don't want him to get nasty, but I want him to be passionate.
That said, I have come to mistrust both of them. These candidates were chosen by the machine that decides who we can vote for. We shoot down independents, or we ignore them until they go away. We'll be voting for the lesser of two evils again this year.
And how about those vice-presidential candidates? I dread their upcoming debate: it has the makings of an historic train wreck. I may have to scream until my throat explodes if Joe Biden manages to somehow give the advantage to a woman I have truly come to dislike. Sarah Palin has no more business in Washington than I do. But she's got the cute, feisty thing down solid. I've met her kind too many times and I don't trust them...they like power and they get it by winning people over. If Palin gets into power, it will legitimize views that I firmly believe will send this country back to the Dark Ages.
Then there's our bailout of Wall Street. There are stories no one is telling. I know a woman who was part of a march on Wall Street last week protesting the bailout. Above her, she said, brokers leaned out of windows, threw dollar bills at the marchers and yelled "Get a job!"
A lovely attitude for people who are begging for nearly a trillion dollars in free money to save their jobs. They are "us" and the people who will give them money are "them." It begins to feel like we're going to go without so that Wall Streeters can save their lofts, their vacation homes and their luxury cars. I am most definitely one of 'them.' I'm trying to figure out how to pay my bills, keep my home, pay for heat this winter. Perhaps I can keep warm by the light of the thank you letters I'm sure to receive from investment advisers and stock brokers.
So I'm painting my living room. If we lose the house, at least it'll look good. And we can enjoy it as long as we have it. The physical activity gives me an outlet for my growing anger. Did Thomas Jefferson really say he thought it would be healthy if we have a revolution every two decades? We are long, long overdue.
and felt worse. She's apparently getting shit online from people jealous of her success. What the hell is wrong with humanity? If one of us makes good, the rest of us have to pick her apart so we can feel better about ourselves. Low low low. Little brains.
Then there's my personal fallout from the first presidential debate. Nice of John McCain to show up. I watched it all. I watched the little 'mood meter' running as each candidate spoke. The independents (green) made nice new colors when their reactions blended with the red or the blue lines. And I realized that our debate system is dirt stupid, and nothing that was said that night is likely to change anyone's mind.
Obama, if you like him, held his own. He was in control, he knew his stuff, he didn't attack but he didn't sit back and leave attacks unanswered. McCain, if you like him, played the "I've been around longer than you" card nicely, frequently pointing out that Senator Obama, as he consistently called him, "didn't understand."
There was one moment that made my night. Remember when McCain tossed out a comment that Obama didn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy? I watch people closely. And if you watched Obama, his eyes flashed. This, apparently, is where Obama draws the line: don't question his intelligence. He didn't lose control, but he caught fire and I was glad to see it. We need someone at the helm who can get angry but keep his head. Obama is often far too even tempered. I don't want him to get nasty, but I want him to be passionate.
That said, I have come to mistrust both of them. These candidates were chosen by the machine that decides who we can vote for. We shoot down independents, or we ignore them until they go away. We'll be voting for the lesser of two evils again this year.
And how about those vice-presidential candidates? I dread their upcoming debate: it has the makings of an historic train wreck. I may have to scream until my throat explodes if Joe Biden manages to somehow give the advantage to a woman I have truly come to dislike. Sarah Palin has no more business in Washington than I do. But she's got the cute, feisty thing down solid. I've met her kind too many times and I don't trust them...they like power and they get it by winning people over. If Palin gets into power, it will legitimize views that I firmly believe will send this country back to the Dark Ages.
Then there's our bailout of Wall Street. There are stories no one is telling. I know a woman who was part of a march on Wall Street last week protesting the bailout. Above her, she said, brokers leaned out of windows, threw dollar bills at the marchers and yelled "Get a job!"
A lovely attitude for people who are begging for nearly a trillion dollars in free money to save their jobs. They are "us" and the people who will give them money are "them." It begins to feel like we're going to go without so that Wall Streeters can save their lofts, their vacation homes and their luxury cars. I am most definitely one of 'them.' I'm trying to figure out how to pay my bills, keep my home, pay for heat this winter. Perhaps I can keep warm by the light of the thank you letters I'm sure to receive from investment advisers and stock brokers.
So I'm painting my living room. If we lose the house, at least it'll look good. And we can enjoy it as long as we have it. The physical activity gives me an outlet for my growing anger. Did Thomas Jefferson really say he thought it would be healthy if we have a revolution every two decades? We are long, long overdue.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Craziest Good Idea I've Ever Heard
| TRENDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE SUPPORTS MODIFIED RHINEBECK NY 24 September 2008 -- The $700 billion bailout plan now before Congress could re-invigorate the economy, asserts Gerald Celente, Director of TheTrends Research Institute. But he warned that success will require certain revisions.
The Trends Research Institute has thoroughly analyzed the exhaustive 3 1/2 page document presented to Congress for approval. "We read every word of it!" said Celente.
"While we don't agree with bailouts in general, if Congress decides to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money, it must be done efficiently. The revisions we are suggesting, though minor, are crucial to implementing the plan successfully," Celente said.
"The bailout plan being debated before Congress, 'The Troubled Asset Relief Program' (TARP) is fraught with uncertainties and unanswerable questions," said Celente. "On the other hand, The Trends Research Institute's revised plan is guaranteed to stimulate economic growth, reduce unemployment, lower taxes, eliminate consumer debt and balance the budget," Celente predicts.
Under TARP, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is granted sole authority to dispense $700 billion as he sees fit. Paulson said the money would be used to mainly cover losses incurred by failing financial firms, brokerages, investment banks, leveraged buyout firms, insurance agencies, and any other financial entity deemed "too big to fail."
Under the alternative Trends Research Institute Program (TRIP), $700 billion would not be dispensed at the sole discretion of the Economic Czar. Rather, under TRIP the $700 billion would be distributed equally among the 200,000,000 taxpayers who put the money up. "Unlike TARP, which is doomed to fail, our plan provides immediate relief. With TARP all the money goes to a handful of failing institutions with the hope that some trickles down to the working public.
"With TRIP, each taxpayer will directly receive a $3.5 million stimulus check. This will instantly generate economic growth, end the housing crisis, reduce unemployment, eliminate consumer debt and balance the budget.
"There is no time to debate TRIP," warned Celente. "Immediate action must be taken. Inaction or delay risks an economic Armageddon. While Congress is wrangling over how much to pay overpaid CEO's under TARP, TRIP could be instantly written into law, solving the economic woes of our nation."
Trendpost: Once you receive your TRIP check, try to refrain from buying more than one Ferrari. Invest wisely. Consider putting your money in a Trends Research Investment Plan (TRIP 2). While not yet government sanctioned, we expect swift approval once TRIP becomes law. "If Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley can become banks overnight by government decree, why not us?" asked Celente.
Call to Action: If you want your fair share of the $700 billion, call your Congressman and Senators. Tell them you want TRIP not TARP. Now that you're excited (I sure was!) I must add the post script. This notice was followed by a disclaimer. Apparently it was meant to be satirical...and worse yet, the actual number each taxpayer would get if the 700 billion was divvied up was 35 hundred...not 3.5 million. I don't think 3500 will do much to help most people faced with no job or the loss of their homes. |
Friday, August 29, 2008
Clever, Clever, Clever
So the GOP has chosen Alaska's governor as the vice presidential nominee. Now that's clever.
Sarah Palin is the perfect answer to so many of McCain's problems....she's young, she's a Washington outsider...even a political outsider. She's a woman. If I agreed with her politics I'd probably be dancing in the streets.
I'm hoping that women who are still smarting from Hillary Clinton's fall from the political podium are smart enough to look beyond gender.
I was raked over the coals via email by a NOW official for not enthusiastically jumping on board the Clinton bandwagon during the primary. It wasn't about gender for me. Nor was it about race. I had problems with Clinton as a candidate. I found less to worry about in what I knew of Obama.
Now the Republicans have a woman on the ticket. This could make McCain's many unpalatable positions go down a lot easier. If this smart, capable woman thinks he's okay, maybe he's not as bad as we thought, huh?
Don't settle for the easy answers. Women are an important part of this nation's voting block and they need to use that power intelligently. That doesn't mean voting for one of our own simply because she's one of us. Condoleeza Rice is a smart, capable woman, too. Do you agree with her political views?
This election is about very important issues: the economy, the war, the environment, our relationship with the rest of the global community.
I don't presume to tell you what to do. But I desperately hope that no matter whether you're a woman or a man, white, red, black or any other color in the rainbow, gay, straight, rich or poor, young or old, you use your head as well as your heart. Decide where you stand on the issues and support the candidate who best represents what you believe to be the right answers.
Be clever, too.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
My Name is Susan and I Have a Perfection Problem
It's interesting how situations can force you to confront your character, showing you things you never wanted to admit about yourself.
This show is a challenge - as I have mentioned, I am doing two jobs at the same time. At first, I was in a panic. I was frantically cranking out edited shows in a desperate attempt to stay a week or two ahead of the air schedule. It's not a good thing when the show date arrives and there's nothing to put there.
Then I had a couple of weeks of low production - I was doing interviews, stockpiling sound from the other sources and beginning to line up the dominoes of future shows in my mind.
As this was going on, I noticed something - I was relaxing my standards for my daily news job. Not that I wasn't getting the stories told, but I was less concerned about being wildly creative or breathtakingly sound-rich. And it bothers me. My fixation on doing a good job led to three awards for three different stories in 2008 and I'm prouder of that achievement than I admit to myself. I don't see any awards coming from the stories I've produced since taking over The Show With Issues.
Perhaps I'm a perfectionist?
It seems unlikely, really. I'm not a meticulous person - when I paint a room, I make a mess and clean up the slop later. I clean house but I miss the dustballs in the corner. When I write I tend to go with my first draft with very few revisions. That doesn't sound like a perfectionist to me.
Yet when I noticed that I was also making The Show less complex, easier to edit and basically cutting corners to make my life a little easier, it bothered me. A lot. The Show and my news stories have me all over them...it's my writing, my name and my voice. And I want who I am to be identified with something really, really good.
Yet this past week, I did the usual seven stories for the daily news, plus cranked out four (yes four!) half hour edited shows. As I filed the last one, I got an email back from my supervisor saying, "Okay, insane lady." And I had to agree. Why on earth am I pushing so hard to be the most stellar worker on the planet?
I don't think I am looking for public acclaim (although that's up for discussion and thought as well) but I most certainly want the people I work with to say "Good job!" when that's what I've done.
So am I going to drive myself into the ground trying to be so terrific that my colleagues will not be able to avoid giving me kudos? That's sick. Or am I so horrified by incompetence that I go overboard to make sure I never get stuck with that label?
I am finding that the one part of the job where I thought I was weak is becoming a strength- I interview well. The people I'm talking with are thoroughly enjoying themselves and the resulting interviews are fascinating - we go in depth in a hurry.
I spoke with two authors on books about the Iraq war and its connection with big oil. We covered the bases in twenty minutes and had a good time doing it. Then I spoke with actress Laila Robins for the arts segment of the show and we ended up having a really good discussion about violence in the movies and on stage and what that means about our society. It's nowhere either of us thought we'd be going, but we poked around and she had some really strong opinions that I think the listeners are going to find compelling.
So goody - Perfect Me has something to feel good about. But Perfect Me isn't so happy with the quality of her day to day work, and Perfect Me is noticing every compromise in The Show. Where I plugged in two or three songs between stories, I now do one. I'm getting it down to a formula, and that makes it far easier to do. But something's being lost because of a time crunch and I'm sorry to see it go.
Friday, July 18, 2008
A Day in the Life
Back to work today - I could get used to a schedule like this. One day off, a day on, two days off, work another day and then....the weekend! Sadly, this won't happen again for awhile. But it was a great breather.
Fridays are my day to work on The Show. And I had a full day scheduled. As usual, it started off a little strangely. I knew I had to interview someone at eleven and I'd written her name in my planner...but I couldn't remember why I was going to talk to her.
It's a strange feeling to know a name and a number and not have a clue why you were going to be talking. Fortunately, after a fruitless internet search for her name, I found a file card I'd made with one word on it: Thailand. That was enough. She was a woman I'd spoken to for a news story and in the course of conversation she revealed that she had just returned to the States after moving to Thailand. She and her husband had retired, packed their bags and moved there a couple of years ago. The only reason they'd returned was that the rental on their home in the States hadn't worked out and they had to come back to do repairs and figure out what to do next. Selling isn't an option in the current economy and she was asked to return to her old job on a temporary basis, so she seemed happy with the situation. But I wanted to know what it had been like, pulling up stakes and moving somewhere so completely different.
The main thing that struck me after I spoke with her today was the story she told me about going to the local markets after she'd lived there awhile and people telling her it was time she spoke to them in their own language.
"You live here, you stay here, you speak Thai," she was told.
It sounded a lot like what I hear around the U.S. these days.
That interview was immediately followed by a phone call to the sustainability department head at Ford Motors. She's a nice young woman with an engineering degree whose job is to steer Ford into the future.
"Is there a perception in the industry that maybe you're all getting on board too late?" I asked her.
"Maybe a little. But we've started now and all we can do is the best we can."
The next interview (I told you it was a full day) was the woman who hosts the women's issues page at About.com. I first got in touch with her when I got The Show and she was very enthusiastic about getting involved. She used to have a radio show and she misses it. I figured she'd be a great person to talk to about women in the media. It's an upcoming theme on The Show (I have a great interview with Barbara Walters courtesy the host of another show at the station) and she'd written an editorial about the flap over CBS's Lara Logan. I didn't know who Logan was, but I watched some of her reports on YouTube and was particularly taken with her interview on The Daily Show. She told Jon Stewart that if she watched the news the rest of us watched, she'd want to blow her brains out. That's what I call refreshing candor.
About.com's Linda Lowen thinks the tabloid's fascination with Logan's personal life wouldn't exist if Logan wasn't a beautiful woman. She compares Logan to Jessica Savitch...another smart, savvy woman who moved up fast in broadcasting. That sent me on a hunt for Savitch and I came up with gold - a very frank interview she did with David Letterman after she wrote her book, Anchorwoman. Savitch said what ticked her off the most was when she was referred to as a 'newsgirl'.
"Just once I'd like to see someone say, 'And today, newsboy Tom Brokaw said...'."
Linda and I enthusiastically agreed that we love CNN's Candy Crowley because she breaks every mold and every myth...and she does a damned good job without anyone making a big deal about it. Here's where you can see what Linda has to say on a lot of topics. www.womensissues.about.com
My last interview of the day was with two women from Project Vote Smart. They're trying very hard to make people aware they exist. I'm amazed everyone doesn't know. If you don't, you should go to www.votesmart.org
They are a non-partisan, non-profit group that keeps painstaking records of every politician's vote on every issue and makes that information available to the public free of charge. Their goal is to make voters able to make educated choices at the polls.
I asked them about the presidential campaign and they said although John McCain and Barack Obama have some clear differences on the issues, the one unfortunate thing they have in common is the way they campaign. Candidates, they have found, don't want to be too open about their own stands on the the issues...it's not good for the campaign. Instead, they poll voters, find out where their own strengths are and where their opponents are weakest, and campaign on those issues. That's something the people from Vote Smart think is unfortunate, and also something they don't see changing anytime soon. It's how our elections are run.
I spent the last couple of hours of the day editing the women in the news-themed show. That's a fun job...playing with a computer editing program, chopping up sound files, adding music and creating a finished product. It's a lot like a video game.
The bad news is that's not the next show scheduled to air. That one is almost ready to go, but I'm holding on until the last moment in hopes of getting a woman considered 'the voice of Tibet' to talk to me in time for a show that airs the day a peaceful candelight protest is scheduled against China's policy on Tibet.
If things went smoothly, I'd have nothing to stress about. And what fun would that be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)