Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Race and the McCain Campaign
What the McCain campaign is doing with race sickens me...all the more so because I think it's working. The men and women working for both campaigns (but especially the McCain campaign which has lots of veterans of the Bush years) are experienced professionals. These are people whose job it is to understand the effects ideas, words, and images will have on the American voting public. So if you think there was one trace of innocence and naivety in McCain's recent accusation of Obama playing the "race card" or his commercial featuring Obama interspersed with images of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, think again. For all the progress America has made since the 1960s, there is still racism remaining. But that racism has morphed, from the white superiority movement of the 1960s, to a feeling of anger at African Americans, who many perceive are the beneficiaries of undue advantages in job-hirings, school admissions, etc, and are simultaneously the causes of much of urban blight and crime. If you ask the average American man or woman whether whites are superior to blacks, I think the answer you will get is a resounding no. However, if you put a white family in a black neighborhood, those car doors are going to be locked, and if you show a white man, a black student in an elite school or institution you can bet there's going to be whispers of affirmative action. It's for this reason that some Black leaders (Shelby Steele for example, have argued against affirmative action in general.) The McCain campaign officials, aware of this underlying resentment, are willing to capitalize it for political gain. There are no accidents of the campaign trail of the 21st century, only hidden motives, dirty politics, and the willingness to create disunity and dishonor for political victory.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
McCain's Campaign
I have been completely disappointed with John McCain's Presidential campaign this year. It has endorsed no progressive policies, embodies no greater ideals for this country and the future other than patriotic platitudes and gives no impression that it will really reverse course on any of the Bush policies, which have so threatened this country's place in the globe, and the continuing prosperity and peace of the world itself. The Obama campaign, while far from perfect, has put together a coherent energy and semi-coherent economic policy. The McCain campaign offers none of the above. It has spent millions of advertising dollars blaming Obama for high gas prices (really, is it Obama's fault that the rising economies of the developing world are increasing oil demand at the same time that oil production is stagnating?) while promoting it's own plan of offshore drilling. A scheme, which sources as varied as T. Boone Pickens, an oilman, and the genius behind the 2004 Swift Boat ads and the White House's own Department of Energy, concede will make a negligible dent in oil supply, and whatever dent is made won't be present for at least ten years. None of this matters though because to voters who don't have the time or means to access in-depth information about policies every day, McCain's plan seems to make intuitive sense. More drilling=more oil=lower gas prices=me not defaulting on my mortgage. The fact that this logical string is incorrect is unimportant so long as voters believe it. Same thing with Iraq's involvement with 9/11 in the 2004 Presidential campaign. Even though there was a tenuous connection at best, enough voters believed the Iraqi connection, that it had a significant effect on the election. What is important is not what is true, but what voters believe to be true, and the McCain campaign has capitalized on this for the betterment of his candidacy and to the detriment of the country (the irony here is incredible as McCain made the recent assertion that Obama would rather win a Presidential campaign and lose a war.) John McCain may be a war hero and an honorable man, but his action's over the past few months have proved that he is not fit to be President of the United States.
Tomorrow: The Campaign and Race
Tomorrow: The Campaign and Race
Monday, August 4, 2008
Weekly Links (July 29th-Aug 4th)
Here are the new weekly links. Some of these articles I blogged about earlier in the week.
1)David Brooks op-ed on America's failing education system and its effect on our income gap. The US is lagging behind in human capital development (one of our hallmarks in the postwar years,) and this is part of a reason for our economic struggles. Also, the article cites research that "points out that big gaps in educational attainment are present at age 5. Some children are bathed in an atmosphere that promotes human capital development and, increasingly, more are not. By 5, it is possible to predict, with depressing accuracy, who will complete high school and college and who won’t." Obviously this should be a big issue in domestic policy and the current political campaign. Unsurprisingly, we haven't heard much from either candidate. Perhaps they were drowned out by the Media's screaming about the "race card."
2) Wall Street Journal piece on the changing demographics of the Mountain West states. Many professionals (both older and younger) are moving out from the West Coast, in search of cheaper real estate and a more laid back lifestyle. This is having serious ramifications for the political decisions of these states (for example Montana and Colorado are both in play for the Democrats this year.) It is also having an effect on the long-term residents of these states, many of whom don't like the changes instituted by the newcomers.
3)This New York Times article was my favorite article of the week. It dissected Barack Obama's tenure as a Law Professor at the University of Chicago. Obama was a highly-sought after lecturer, but was absent from much of the intellectual debating that is a hallmark of the university's faculty. Obama presented many interesting hypotheticals to his class, about such controversial issues as gay marriage and affirmative action, but often refused to take a stand, instead providing hypotheticals for both sides.
4)In-depth New Yorker report on the shadow economy of marijuana production in California. The state's legalization of marijuana for medical-purposes, which still runs counter to federal laws, has created a confusing situation, in which legality is never completely defined. The author chronicles the growers and sellers attempts to feel there way around the new laws, as well as the effect that the legalization has had on a formerly illicit business.
5)Autobiographical op-ed by Kristoff on his mixed feelings about meat-eating and animal rights. His memories from his childhood on a farm are pretty intense.
6)Sweet New York Times article about how a community emerged in New York City among people who took turns volunteering to read to a 101 year old woman. Kind of sappy, but still makes you feel good about the human race.
7)Another excellent David Brook's op-ed. This one deals with the topic of global sclerosis, or the inability for concerted global action on a number of very important issues, because so many countries now effectively hold veto power. He states presciently "...in each case, the logic is the same. Groups with a strong narrow interest are able to block larger groups with a diffuse but generalized interest. The narrow Chinese interest in Sudanese oil blocks the world’s general interest in preventing genocide. Iran’s narrow interest in nuclear weapons trumps the world’s general interest in preventing a Middle East arms race. Diplomacy goes asymmetric and the small defeat the large...But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy."
8)I found this article alarming. The government is currently allowed to confiscate any device which may hold digital or analog information that is held by travellers (US citizens or not) that pass through US borders. The government may hold the device for an unspecified period of time, and make copies of the information within. If the information is found to not be used in a criminal case, the copies must be destroyed, but the notes investigators made on the copies may be retained. This seems to me, to be a gross outrage against our rights, and emblematic of the type of police state action this country may see if another catastrophic terrorist attack occurs within our borders.
9) Interesting New York Times article about "the incline," a steep trail of railroad ties that gains 2000 feet in elevation over a mile of distance. It is located near the US Olympic training facility in Colorado, and is a "favorite" training tool of many of the athletes working out there.
10) Great inteview with Pakistan Scholar Ahmed Rashid. He just wrote a book entitled Descent into Chaos, about post 9/11 Afghanistan, and offers some excellent critiques on American policy, as well as some recommendations about how to create peace in the region.
Bonus Article: China's growing cities
1)David Brooks op-ed on America's failing education system and its effect on our income gap. The US is lagging behind in human capital development (one of our hallmarks in the postwar years,) and this is part of a reason for our economic struggles. Also, the article cites research that "points out that big gaps in educational attainment are present at age 5. Some children are bathed in an atmosphere that promotes human capital development and, increasingly, more are not. By 5, it is possible to predict, with depressing accuracy, who will complete high school and college and who won’t." Obviously this should be a big issue in domestic policy and the current political campaign. Unsurprisingly, we haven't heard much from either candidate. Perhaps they were drowned out by the Media's screaming about the "race card."
2) Wall Street Journal piece on the changing demographics of the Mountain West states. Many professionals (both older and younger) are moving out from the West Coast, in search of cheaper real estate and a more laid back lifestyle. This is having serious ramifications for the political decisions of these states (for example Montana and Colorado are both in play for the Democrats this year.) It is also having an effect on the long-term residents of these states, many of whom don't like the changes instituted by the newcomers.
3)This New York Times article was my favorite article of the week. It dissected Barack Obama's tenure as a Law Professor at the University of Chicago. Obama was a highly-sought after lecturer, but was absent from much of the intellectual debating that is a hallmark of the university's faculty. Obama presented many interesting hypotheticals to his class, about such controversial issues as gay marriage and affirmative action, but often refused to take a stand, instead providing hypotheticals for both sides.
4)In-depth New Yorker report on the shadow economy of marijuana production in California. The state's legalization of marijuana for medical-purposes, which still runs counter to federal laws, has created a confusing situation, in which legality is never completely defined. The author chronicles the growers and sellers attempts to feel there way around the new laws, as well as the effect that the legalization has had on a formerly illicit business.
5)Autobiographical op-ed by Kristoff on his mixed feelings about meat-eating and animal rights. His memories from his childhood on a farm are pretty intense.
6)Sweet New York Times article about how a community emerged in New York City among people who took turns volunteering to read to a 101 year old woman. Kind of sappy, but still makes you feel good about the human race.
7)Another excellent David Brook's op-ed. This one deals with the topic of global sclerosis, or the inability for concerted global action on a number of very important issues, because so many countries now effectively hold veto power. He states presciently "...in each case, the logic is the same. Groups with a strong narrow interest are able to block larger groups with a diffuse but generalized interest. The narrow Chinese interest in Sudanese oil blocks the world’s general interest in preventing genocide. Iran’s narrow interest in nuclear weapons trumps the world’s general interest in preventing a Middle East arms race. Diplomacy goes asymmetric and the small defeat the large...But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy."
8)I found this article alarming. The government is currently allowed to confiscate any device which may hold digital or analog information that is held by travellers (US citizens or not) that pass through US borders. The government may hold the device for an unspecified period of time, and make copies of the information within. If the information is found to not be used in a criminal case, the copies must be destroyed, but the notes investigators made on the copies may be retained. This seems to me, to be a gross outrage against our rights, and emblematic of the type of police state action this country may see if another catastrophic terrorist attack occurs within our borders.
9) Interesting New York Times article about "the incline," a steep trail of railroad ties that gains 2000 feet in elevation over a mile of distance. It is located near the US Olympic training facility in Colorado, and is a "favorite" training tool of many of the athletes working out there.
10) Great inteview with Pakistan Scholar Ahmed Rashid. He just wrote a book entitled Descent into Chaos, about post 9/11 Afghanistan, and offers some excellent critiques on American policy, as well as some recommendations about how to create peace in the region.
Bonus Article: China's growing cities
Friday, August 1, 2008
Ramblings
Today's been a long day at work (for once) so here's a few quick things.
1)There was a Wall Street Journal article today about how Walmart is having meeting with its employees about the negative implications for the company if the Employee Free Choice Act passes Congress. The human resources supervisors who lead the meetings emphasize that the act, which will facilitate unionization, will be likely to pass if the Democrats win the White House and a majority in Congress. They are not out and out telling their workers to vote Republican, but atre toeing a very delicate line on the legality of political influence by employers and employees (evidently employers are allowed to give political suggestions to salaried workers, but not to hourly workers.)
Even though this seems like a broken-record story of inappropriate corporate interference on first telling, I am of mixed feelings about this. Yes, in an ideal world, workers would be able to unionize without either political or economic ramifications, but this is not the world in which we live. Especially in times of economic downturn like the present, companies are forced (or choose) to deal with lower income and rising costs by downsizing. Unionization, if successful, will bring workers more pay and better benefits, which also increases costs for the company. The company may then respond by downsizing because it cannot afford to pay the higher costs. So as much as I don't like corporations meddling in their employees political affairs, don't employees also have a right to know how their government's decisions will affect their job security and future pay? Yet at the same time, isn't what Walmart doing akin to saying, if the Democrats win in the fall, there will be downsizing, and thereby implying that for their own financial security their workers will be forced to vote Republican. I am sort of thinking out loud here, and I'm not exactly sure what the right answer is, except that it's always important to remember that in our flawed society there's almost never one correct black and white answer, cven as the news media and campaigns do their best to eradicate all gray area from our public life.
2) David Brooks wrote a great op-ed today about the paralysis in making global decisions that defines our world today. He contrasts it to the world after WWII, when all power was cemented in the hands of the "Atlantic Alliance" and even within these countries was held by a "bipartisan governing elite." Contrast that to today, when there are 15 or 20 countries ranging from China to Brazil who have power to prevent important global consensuses on topics like global warming and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Even in our own country, power is so splintered that it's hard to create a national imperative to accomplish anything. Brooks argues that we need some sort of global governing mechanism to enforce obedience (or at least acquiesce) to the majority's decision. I agree that some sort of organization like this would be an incredible step forward, but I am pessimistic on it being accomplished within the next 25-30 years. The goals and priorities of the established superpowers (US, Japan, Germany, UK) and the emerging superpowers (China, India, Brazil, even Turkey) differ significantly, are often at odds, and will not be reconciled easily.
3)Haruki Murakami just came out with a new book on distance running, entitled What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. Murakami is one of my favorite fiction authors and I've run competitively (well, sort of) for the last 8 years, so I'm eagerly anticipating getting this book. Though ironically I haven't yet had time to buy it, because I run every day after work.
4)Finally the weekend. I needed this break pretty badly.
1)There was a Wall Street Journal article today about how Walmart is having meeting with its employees about the negative implications for the company if the Employee Free Choice Act passes Congress. The human resources supervisors who lead the meetings emphasize that the act, which will facilitate unionization, will be likely to pass if the Democrats win the White House and a majority in Congress. They are not out and out telling their workers to vote Republican, but atre toeing a very delicate line on the legality of political influence by employers and employees (evidently employers are allowed to give political suggestions to salaried workers, but not to hourly workers.)
Even though this seems like a broken-record story of inappropriate corporate interference on first telling, I am of mixed feelings about this. Yes, in an ideal world, workers would be able to unionize without either political or economic ramifications, but this is not the world in which we live. Especially in times of economic downturn like the present, companies are forced (or choose) to deal with lower income and rising costs by downsizing. Unionization, if successful, will bring workers more pay and better benefits, which also increases costs for the company. The company may then respond by downsizing because it cannot afford to pay the higher costs. So as much as I don't like corporations meddling in their employees political affairs, don't employees also have a right to know how their government's decisions will affect their job security and future pay? Yet at the same time, isn't what Walmart doing akin to saying, if the Democrats win in the fall, there will be downsizing, and thereby implying that for their own financial security their workers will be forced to vote Republican. I am sort of thinking out loud here, and I'm not exactly sure what the right answer is, except that it's always important to remember that in our flawed society there's almost never one correct black and white answer, cven as the news media and campaigns do their best to eradicate all gray area from our public life.
2) David Brooks wrote a great op-ed today about the paralysis in making global decisions that defines our world today. He contrasts it to the world after WWII, when all power was cemented in the hands of the "Atlantic Alliance" and even within these countries was held by a "bipartisan governing elite." Contrast that to today, when there are 15 or 20 countries ranging from China to Brazil who have power to prevent important global consensuses on topics like global warming and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Even in our own country, power is so splintered that it's hard to create a national imperative to accomplish anything. Brooks argues that we need some sort of global governing mechanism to enforce obedience (or at least acquiesce) to the majority's decision. I agree that some sort of organization like this would be an incredible step forward, but I am pessimistic on it being accomplished within the next 25-30 years. The goals and priorities of the established superpowers (US, Japan, Germany, UK) and the emerging superpowers (China, India, Brazil, even Turkey) differ significantly, are often at odds, and will not be reconciled easily.
3)Haruki Murakami just came out with a new book on distance running, entitled What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. Murakami is one of my favorite fiction authors and I've run competitively (well, sort of) for the last 8 years, so I'm eagerly anticipating getting this book. Though ironically I haven't yet had time to buy it, because I run every day after work.
4)Finally the weekend. I needed this break pretty badly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)