http://jezebel.com/5406933/matchpoint?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jezebel%2Ffull+(Jezebel)&utm_content=Google+Reader
This is probably the first news item I've seen on Sudan that isn't about genocide. As we question our involvement or lack thereof in Darfur, i think it's an important reminder of what is at stake.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Douthat Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02douthatsub.html
The gist of his article: Third party candidacy is good at the local level. Among his points: Doug Hoffman did a huge favor for NY-23 by holding left-drifting Republicans accountable.
But the symbolism of Hoffman's candidacy reinforces the socially conservative far-right litmus test of Republican candidates...to be a true Repub, now you have to fall in line with Sarah Palin? NY-23 is a moderately conservative district, and in the end there was no moderately conservative candidate to choose from. Maybe the message got out that you can't be too left or too right to win a seat as a Republican candidate, but it ended up costing them reprentation in Congress.
For someone who writes about the joys of 3rd party candidacy, way to not mention VT except to reference Dean's presidential campaign. We have a 3rd party Senator and consistently have Independents running for Governor, which actually hasn't worked out too well for us imo.
The gist of his article: Third party candidacy is good at the local level. Among his points: Doug Hoffman did a huge favor for NY-23 by holding left-drifting Republicans accountable.
But the symbolism of Hoffman's candidacy reinforces the socially conservative far-right litmus test of Republican candidates...to be a true Repub, now you have to fall in line with Sarah Palin? NY-23 is a moderately conservative district, and in the end there was no moderately conservative candidate to choose from. Maybe the message got out that you can't be too left or too right to win a seat as a Republican candidate, but it ended up costing them reprentation in Congress.
For someone who writes about the joys of 3rd party candidacy, way to not mention VT except to reference Dean's presidential campaign. We have a 3rd party Senator and consistently have Independents running for Governor, which actually hasn't worked out too well for us imo.
A Response to an Article my Father Sent Me
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110302625.html
I think Mr. Gerson's idea of balance is right, and I don't think that transferring some of the cost of caring for older Americans to younger Americans is a bad thing. For one, it's hard to apply a statistic to an individual. Statistically, young people cost the health care system less than old people. But you never know if you're going to be one of the young people who costs the system more. That's what insurance does--you pay just in case that person is you. The risk may be less, so maybe you pay less, but you can't say that every young person costs less than every old person and therefore all young people should pay less. Also, the health of older Americans is not just a moral issue but a public good as well. Is it a stretch to say that most young Americans have a higher quality of life because their parents live longer and have access to elder care? ;) As for us needing the system when we get older, I know some people would rather shift to a mandatory HSA system so that we are paying for our own care in old age rather than relying on medicare, but for most people the net effect is probably the same as paying into medicare, and for the people who would be responsible and save more in their HSA, in some way it's at the expense of people who simply don't have the resources to contribute to an HSA.
I think Mr. Gerson's idea of balance is right, and I don't think that transferring some of the cost of caring for older Americans to younger Americans is a bad thing. For one, it's hard to apply a statistic to an individual. Statistically, young people cost the health care system less than old people. But you never know if you're going to be one of the young people who costs the system more. That's what insurance does--you pay just in case that person is you. The risk may be less, so maybe you pay less, but you can't say that every young person costs less than every old person and therefore all young people should pay less. Also, the health of older Americans is not just a moral issue but a public good as well. Is it a stretch to say that most young Americans have a higher quality of life because their parents live longer and have access to elder care? ;) As for us needing the system when we get older, I know some people would rather shift to a mandatory HSA system so that we are paying for our own care in old age rather than relying on medicare, but for most people the net effect is probably the same as paying into medicare, and for the people who would be responsible and save more in their HSA, in some way it's at the expense of people who simply don't have the resources to contribute to an HSA.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Haha OMG and I just saw this:
From the first sentence of Brooks' previous op-ed:
"Humans are overconfident creatures."
LOLZ. But Obama should totally go with his gut determination on Afghanistan.
Although I do have to admit I kind of agree with this statement: "Over the past year, the bonfire of overconfidence has shifted to Washington. Since the masters of finance have been exposed as idiots, the masters of government have concluded (somewhat illogically) that they must be really smart."
Nevertheless, then we get back into wtf territory with this paragraph:
"Humans are overconfident creatures."
LOLZ. But Obama should totally go with his gut determination on Afghanistan.
Although I do have to admit I kind of agree with this statement: "Over the past year, the bonfire of overconfidence has shifted to Washington. Since the masters of finance have been exposed as idiots, the masters of government have concluded (somewhat illogically) that they must be really smart."
Nevertheless, then we get back into wtf territory with this paragraph:
"Nobody seriously believes high pay caused the financial meltdown; it was bubblicious groupthink. But cutting executive pay just polls so well.
Every great action can be done in a spirit of humility or in a spirit of overconfidence. Regulating pay in a spirit of humility would mean rebalancing the power between shareholders and executives, without getting government involved in micromanaging individual pay decisions."
This is just annoying op-ed-iness. People who do not rely on public opinion polls don't all actually believe that shareholders are the best people to renegotiate executive pay: http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/the_ceo_pay_debate_why_reform_is_going_nowhere
Every great action can be done in a spirit of humility or in a spirit of overconfidence. Regulating pay in a spirit of humility would mean rebalancing the power between shareholders and executives, without getting government involved in micromanaging individual pay decisions."
This is just annoying op-ed-iness. People who do not rely on public opinion polls don't all actually believe that shareholders are the best people to renegotiate executive pay: http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/the_ceo_pay_debate_why_reform_is_going_nowhere
one of the worst columns brooks has written
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html
Specious comparisons to Lincoln and Churchill? (Where are the comparisons to LBJ or Nixon, or the USSR, if you're going to pick and choose?) Basing our policy in Af/Pak on a gut feeling of "determination" in one person? Not even addressing the Hoh resignation, even just to tear it down, if that's what you believe?
I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether we should stay in Afghanistan, but going by my gut as Brooks would have me do, I don't think we can achieve an acceptable "win" scenario by military force. Even though nuclear Pakistan is some scary shit. Our troop presence in Afghanistan just seems to be providing the Taliban and local militias with more targets to blow up. The argument that instability in Afghanistan is bleeding over into Pakistan sounds a lot like domino theory to me, but even buying that that is the case, I think our efforts would be better served by trying to shore up Pakistan by focusing on, well, Pakistan. In Afghanistan we have aligned ourselves with an even less legitimate, respected, and powerful government than the Pakistani government. Even if we create a safe space for democracy there, that's not even half the battle in terms of getting a viable democratic government off the ground. Meanwhile the situation in Pakistan is deteriorating in spite of our increased efforts in Afghanistan. (While the official troop increase is still being discussed, extra support personnel have been quietly deployed to the country.)* And that's without bringing Matt Hoh's resignation letter and "Valleyism" into the argument.
It would be a travesty for the Taliban to regain its hold of Afghanistan, especially for women. It would be a boon to Al Qaeda.** But the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Western Europe, not from a cave in Kandahar. And they are still less fatal than if we were to continue diverting our resources to the Middle East instead of focusing on universal health care, infrastructure, climate change, gun violence, poverty, the food supply, rape culture, and preparedness for natural disasters, which are outcomes we can actually positively affect without sacrificing thousands of American lives in the battle.
*ETA from Mr. Kristof: "In Afghanistan, for example, we have already increased our troop presence by 40,000 troops since the beginning of last year, yet the result has not been the promised stability but only more casualties and a strengthened insurgency. If the last surge of 40,000 troops didn’t help, why will the next one be so different?"
**ETA from Mr. Friedman:
Specious comparisons to Lincoln and Churchill? (Where are the comparisons to LBJ or Nixon, or the USSR, if you're going to pick and choose?) Basing our policy in Af/Pak on a gut feeling of "determination" in one person? Not even addressing the Hoh resignation, even just to tear it down, if that's what you believe?
I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether we should stay in Afghanistan, but going by my gut as Brooks would have me do, I don't think we can achieve an acceptable "win" scenario by military force. Even though nuclear Pakistan is some scary shit. Our troop presence in Afghanistan just seems to be providing the Taliban and local militias with more targets to blow up. The argument that instability in Afghanistan is bleeding over into Pakistan sounds a lot like domino theory to me, but even buying that that is the case, I think our efforts would be better served by trying to shore up Pakistan by focusing on, well, Pakistan. In Afghanistan we have aligned ourselves with an even less legitimate, respected, and powerful government than the Pakistani government. Even if we create a safe space for democracy there, that's not even half the battle in terms of getting a viable democratic government off the ground. Meanwhile the situation in Pakistan is deteriorating in spite of our increased efforts in Afghanistan. (While the official troop increase is still being discussed, extra support personnel have been quietly deployed to the country.)* And that's without bringing Matt Hoh's resignation letter and "Valleyism" into the argument.
It would be a travesty for the Taliban to regain its hold of Afghanistan, especially for women. It would be a boon to Al Qaeda.** But the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Western Europe, not from a cave in Kandahar. And they are still less fatal than if we were to continue diverting our resources to the Middle East instead of focusing on universal health care, infrastructure, climate change, gun violence, poverty, the food supply, rape culture, and preparedness for natural disasters, which are outcomes we can actually positively affect without sacrificing thousands of American lives in the battle.
*ETA from Mr. Kristof: "In Afghanistan, for example, we have already increased our troop presence by 40,000 troops since the beginning of last year, yet the result has not been the promised stability but only more casualties and a strengthened insurgency. If the last surge of 40,000 troops didn’t help, why will the next one be so different?"
**ETA from Mr. Friedman:
"What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won’t Al Qaeda return, the Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my second principle: In the Middle East, all politics — everything that matters — happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.
And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he’ll get zapped by a drone."
Friday, October 23, 2009
Getting Ranty, or, Sit Down and STFU
I'm sick of reading about how women pay higher health insurance premiums and things like Caesarians and domestic violence are considered pre-existing conditions. Oh, and fat people should pay more for health care because they will use the system more. The John Kyl view holds that people who will never use these services shouldn't have to pay for them (nevermind the fact that body weight is not a great proxy for who will need cardiac care or diabetes management).
People, I am so sick of this.
We all pay into the system one way or another, and some of us rely on some parts of the system more heavily than others. Some of us use public education, others have health issues that require expensive treatment, others have violence committed against them and need law enforcement services. If you do not need to rely on state services at all for whatever reason, THE CORRECT RESPONSE IS NOT TO WHINE ABOUT PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, IT IS TO BE FUCKING GRATEFUL THAT YOU DO NOT NEED THESE SERVICES. Education, health, law enforcement, maternity care--these things are public goods that we all benefit from whether or not you yourself are benefiting directly. I REPEAT: AN EDUCATED, HEALTHY, SAFE, PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY BENEFITS EVERYONE. So if you are complaining about how your premium shouldn't reflect the cost of fat people or mothers or people with disabilities or domestic violence victims, SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
People, I am so sick of this.
We all pay into the system one way or another, and some of us rely on some parts of the system more heavily than others. Some of us use public education, others have health issues that require expensive treatment, others have violence committed against them and need law enforcement services. If you do not need to rely on state services at all for whatever reason, THE CORRECT RESPONSE IS NOT TO WHINE ABOUT PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, IT IS TO BE FUCKING GRATEFUL THAT YOU DO NOT NEED THESE SERVICES. Education, health, law enforcement, maternity care--these things are public goods that we all benefit from whether or not you yourself are benefiting directly. I REPEAT: AN EDUCATED, HEALTHY, SAFE, PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY BENEFITS EVERYONE. So if you are complaining about how your premium shouldn't reflect the cost of fat people or mothers or people with disabilities or domestic violence victims, SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Monday, October 5, 2009
at least he writes about interesting/important topics
even if I don't agree with what he says much. Here's Douthat's column from today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05adouthat.html?_r=1
I just want to ruminate on a couple of his points:
1) Liberals are unlikely to support immigration reform that curbs the number of unskilled laborers coming into the US.
Well, this may or may not be true. Liberals do tend to like policies that are humane to the immigrants who are already here, such as not splitting families apart (though this is in contrast to Douthat's next point) and not punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Such policies encourage more people to try to enter the country illegally, and worry about naturalization once here. Right now, though immigration reform is on the back burner, the politically expedient stance among both Dems and Repubs is to call for better border patrol and a tougher stance toward people here illegally, so in practice I'm not sure that the libs to whom Douthat is referring constitute a politically significant cadre.
But, what struck me most about his statement is the double-edged sword of it all. Traditionally we hear the call to reduce the cost of business for corporations (a rising tide lifts all boats) from the right wing. Cheap laborers reduce that cost. Maybe this is the brilliance of the GOP: reaping the benefits of a policy while pinning the blame for its unpopular aspects on the Dems.
2) "But today’s Democratic Party increasingly represents “unmarried America” — the single, the childless, the divorced. This makes it an unlikely vehicle for policies that discriminate, whether through tax code or the welfare state, in favor of the traditional nuclear family."
Except where same-sex couples are concerned, which could constitute 5% of the family population (assuming a 50% partnered rate for a population that constitutes perhaps 10% of the general populace). Douthat is right when he says that cultural shifts like these go deeper than public policy can extend itself, and I suppose it's up for debate as to whether trying to shift cultural trends away from divorce and single-parenthood is worth punishing people for whom this is the best option. Do we trust them to make the best decisions for themselves (a typical Republican party line)? Also, these are the people who grew up in an era of the nuclear family, and while it may have given them a leg up economically, it doesn't seem to have done the same spiritually...blaming or extolling the nuclear family seems simplistic to say the least.
3) Education needs reform that is unlikely to be brought about by liberals.
Probably true. Douthat wants choice and competition brought to our public schools. I can't exactly disagree, though we'd probably disagree about how to do that. Tying funding for public schools to geographical school districts (and then tying the students to those districts) begets some serious problems with our nation's public schools, and probably gives birth to the growing inequality gap. Choice = good; usually though, "choice" and "competition" go hand in hand with "privatization" in the Republican lexicon. Maybe "choice" could involve a decoupling of geography and school funding/attendance instead. The outcry from rich districts would probably be substantial, but we all pay for other people's education in some way or another because an educated populace is a common good, and this would be an extension of that principle.
4) "The European experience suggests that specific policy interventions — the shape of the tax code, the design of the education system — may matter less in the long run than the sheer size of the state. If you funnel enough of a nation’s gross domestic product through a bureaucracy, the gap between the upper class and everybody else usually compresses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05adouthat.html?_r=1
I just want to ruminate on a couple of his points:
1) Liberals are unlikely to support immigration reform that curbs the number of unskilled laborers coming into the US.
Well, this may or may not be true. Liberals do tend to like policies that are humane to the immigrants who are already here, such as not splitting families apart (though this is in contrast to Douthat's next point) and not punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Such policies encourage more people to try to enter the country illegally, and worry about naturalization once here. Right now, though immigration reform is on the back burner, the politically expedient stance among both Dems and Repubs is to call for better border patrol and a tougher stance toward people here illegally, so in practice I'm not sure that the libs to whom Douthat is referring constitute a politically significant cadre.
But, what struck me most about his statement is the double-edged sword of it all. Traditionally we hear the call to reduce the cost of business for corporations (a rising tide lifts all boats) from the right wing. Cheap laborers reduce that cost. Maybe this is the brilliance of the GOP: reaping the benefits of a policy while pinning the blame for its unpopular aspects on the Dems.
2) "But today’s Democratic Party increasingly represents “unmarried America” — the single, the childless, the divorced. This makes it an unlikely vehicle for policies that discriminate, whether through tax code or the welfare state, in favor of the traditional nuclear family."
Except where same-sex couples are concerned, which could constitute 5% of the family population (assuming a 50% partnered rate for a population that constitutes perhaps 10% of the general populace). Douthat is right when he says that cultural shifts like these go deeper than public policy can extend itself, and I suppose it's up for debate as to whether trying to shift cultural trends away from divorce and single-parenthood is worth punishing people for whom this is the best option. Do we trust them to make the best decisions for themselves (a typical Republican party line)? Also, these are the people who grew up in an era of the nuclear family, and while it may have given them a leg up economically, it doesn't seem to have done the same spiritually...blaming or extolling the nuclear family seems simplistic to say the least.
3) Education needs reform that is unlikely to be brought about by liberals.
Probably true. Douthat wants choice and competition brought to our public schools. I can't exactly disagree, though we'd probably disagree about how to do that. Tying funding for public schools to geographical school districts (and then tying the students to those districts) begets some serious problems with our nation's public schools, and probably gives birth to the growing inequality gap. Choice = good; usually though, "choice" and "competition" go hand in hand with "privatization" in the Republican lexicon. Maybe "choice" could involve a decoupling of geography and school funding/attendance instead. The outcry from rich districts would probably be substantial, but we all pay for other people's education in some way or another because an educated populace is a common good, and this would be an extension of that principle.
4) "The European experience suggests that specific policy interventions — the shape of the tax code, the design of the education system — may matter less in the long run than the sheer size of the state. If you funnel enough of a nation’s gross domestic product through a bureaucracy, the gap between the upper class and everybody else usually compresses.
But economic growth often compresses along with it. This is already the logic of our current fiscal trajectory: ever-larger government, and ever-slower growth."
Interesting.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
I just had to post this...
...without permission from Jezebel. Quoted for truth.
Dear Democratic Senator:
Fuck you in the ear. Oh, wait - in the spirit of discourse I will acknowledge that opening was rude. Let me try again.
Why do you hate my freedom? Or better yet, not my freedom but my right to be healthy in order to exercise these freedoms we are allegedly protecting?
Admittedly, I'm not too thrilled with any of these weak sauce health care plans - this government option is like the Diet Coke Zero of health care reform. Or maybe some stank-ass Axe body spray when we really just need some good deodorant and nice soap. However, it's all we got. I don't mind if you are voting against the public option with another plan that doesn't involve us all bum rushing the ER whenever we need service. Perhaps you have a plan up your sleeve to sneak all 44 million of us across the Canadian border and bootleg us some fake health care cards. I'm fine with this plan - I was just in Canada and was highly tempted to orchestrate a fall down some stairs just so I could see a doctor. If I was really lucky, maybe I could crack a tooth and share my American sob story with a dentist so I can stop these horrible twinges in my teeth. No wonder all our bald eagles moved to Canada - I saw more in three days there than I have in my entire life here. Some symbol of America they are - I'm sure they've all applied for citizenship in Canada as well. If the insurance companies counted DDT poisoning as a pre-existing condition, I don't blame them for leaving us.
But I digress.
I must say, I am concerned at your blanket dismissal of any public option. I am considering writing my next letter to Rahm Emmanuel, because the people's elbow needs to make a dramatic come back on the congressional floor. At any rate, I do hope you reconsider your positions on the public option. If not, we may be forced to come to your office and steal your health care cards along with your identity. After all, Montana, North Dakota, and Arkansas are all much closer than Canada.
Yours in reform,
Latoya Peterson
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A bona fide posting frenzy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1207567/Posh-modelled-Victoria-Beckham-doppelganger-showcases-new-collection.html?ITO=1490
Thin people get the "but she doesn't look as healthy as she could" schtick too. She actually looks fine to me, but that's beside the point. I just don't think you can make an assumption about people based on their size. Anyway, they don't have any responsibility to you to look "healthy". I'm not even qualified to get into the ableism of it all. Statistics do not describe individuals!!!
Thin people get the "but she doesn't look as healthy as she could" schtick too. She actually looks fine to me, but that's beside the point. I just don't think you can make an assumption about people based on their size. Anyway, they don't have any responsibility to you to look "healthy". I'm not even qualified to get into the ableism of it all. Statistics do not describe individuals!!!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Hate Crime
This is a couple weeks old now, but it's still appearing in the news and it's still bothering me. This article sums it up pretty well: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/14/guest-post-dead-girls/
Monday, July 27, 2009
UPDATE: Just read this on Sociological Images:
Conversely, Asian people, both men and women, are often stereotyped as more feminine than white people. Asian men are seen as small and less muscular than white men; Asian women are seen as more passive and deferential than white women.
Another image we have reinforced in The Hangover.
Conversely, Asian people, both men and women, are often stereotyped as more feminine than white people. Asian men are seen as small and less muscular than white men; Asian women are seen as more passive and deferential than white women.
Another image we have reinforced in The Hangover.
OK Wow, So It's Been a Long Time
This blog loosely follows my interests at the time, and last fall that was mainly following the election and all the ass-clownery that went along with it. But it's kind of a depressing season for politics right now (a stimulus that hasn't slowed job loss, a health care reform bill that is not a slam-dunk for improving the national health care picture, a deployment to Afghanistan with a hazy mission) and while I've been following, I haven't felt the urge to write much. Things are either too ridiculous (see Palin's WaPo op-ed on climate change...or George Will's for that matter, which maybe does warrant a rant to the effect of: he's no different from any other ideologue twisting the facts to suit his argument, always referring to "global warming" and shallow reasoning) or too depressing or too complex.
So recently, I've gotten into the fat-o-sphere, and it's made me a bit sensitive to the patriarchy these days. Last night I saw The Hangover, which was fucking hilarious and Bradey Cooper is gorgeous, but I have to go on record to air some of my major issues with the movie. We have 4 images of women throughout the film: the archetypal hooker who is redeemed by a man, who happens to be a rich doctor, the shrew or bitch who is overly controlling of her man and a hypocrite who gets dumped and publicly shamed to boot, actual hookers/strippers all over the lap of a married man (teacher!) like that's okay, and the blushing bride who really doesn't do anything other than sit around, have her hair done, and wait for her man to show up so she can forgive him. Obviously this movie isn't meant to take on the patriarchy, and parts of it were damned funny, but in some ways it's more important to have women portrayed positively in movies like this, as the norm that nobody would think twice about, rather than "ghettoized" in movies that can be written off as feminist propaganda/message movies or with an attitude of "yeah, that would be nice, but that's not how the world works."
So recently, I've gotten into the fat-o-sphere, and it's made me a bit sensitive to the patriarchy these days. Last night I saw The Hangover, which was fucking hilarious and Bradey Cooper is gorgeous, but I have to go on record to air some of my major issues with the movie. We have 4 images of women throughout the film: the archetypal hooker who is redeemed by a man, who happens to be a rich doctor, the shrew or bitch who is overly controlling of her man and a hypocrite who gets dumped and publicly shamed to boot, actual hookers/strippers all over the lap of a married man (teacher!) like that's okay, and the blushing bride who really doesn't do anything other than sit around, have her hair done, and wait for her man to show up so she can forgive him. Obviously this movie isn't meant to take on the patriarchy, and parts of it were damned funny, but in some ways it's more important to have women portrayed positively in movies like this, as the norm that nobody would think twice about, rather than "ghettoized" in movies that can be written off as feminist propaganda/message movies or with an attitude of "yeah, that would be nice, but that's not how the world works."
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Ross Douthat's First Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html
Do you think a Palin candidacy would be a similar test? While her platform hasn't cristalized the way Cheney's has, she represents "real conservatism" to many on the right: tax cuts and "pit-bullish" foreign policy, a get-the-govt-off-our-backs mentality that seems akin to the bare-bones conservatism you attribute to Cheney. However, you can't ignore her Christian side, which is a powerful tool for her pro-life, anti-marriage equality stance...are these the kinds of social issues that Cheney doesn't have time for? While Palin does embody these issues, she seems to be less of a "compassionate conservative" in the way that Bush was with school vouchers and faith-based initiatives, unless her emphasis on special education turns into a full-fledged focus on social issues. Do you think we have evidence that she would turn out to be one kind of candidate or the other? And which one is the "real conservative?" The one that strips away social issues and religion, or the one that uses religion but in a limited way to push only a few core issues like abortion and gay marriage?
Do you think a Palin candidacy would be a similar test? While her platform hasn't cristalized the way Cheney's has, she represents "real conservatism" to many on the right: tax cuts and "pit-bullish" foreign policy, a get-the-govt-off-our-backs mentality that seems akin to the bare-bones conservatism you attribute to Cheney. However, you can't ignore her Christian side, which is a powerful tool for her pro-life, anti-marriage equality stance...are these the kinds of social issues that Cheney doesn't have time for? While Palin does embody these issues, she seems to be less of a "compassionate conservative" in the way that Bush was with school vouchers and faith-based initiatives, unless her emphasis on special education turns into a full-fledged focus on social issues. Do you think we have evidence that she would turn out to be one kind of candidate or the other? And which one is the "real conservative?" The one that strips away social issues and religion, or the one that uses religion but in a limited way to push only a few core issues like abortion and gay marriage?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Town/Gown
http://www.middleburycampus.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=59f36067-e66b-40d3-b405-df2bf5b3fbe5
And the problem looks like it will probably get worse, with Addison County losing one of its essential advocates for people in need of housing: http://www.addisonindependent.com/?q=node/2079/lightbox2
I also think the article came off as insensitive, making a joke out of a serious and not uncommon situation. I hope the family found help, and I hope Public Safety did more than simply "escort them off campus".
That said, I probably would have treated the situation the same way when I was at Midd...if I could do it all over again, I would get off campus more. Duh, rural homelessness is a problem, but you don't really think about it when you're at Midd.
I hope the students involved in this incident (and the reporter) take it to heart and get more involved in the community. It was a little ironic to read this in the same issue of the Campus that reported on the "housing crisis" on campus. While the college does many wonderful things for the town, there are some ways that it exacerbates the town-gown relationship, and one of those ways is housing. Midd controls the number of students who live off campus, but the students and their generally large purses still have an effect on pushing up housing costs in the community. In many ways, it is worth it to the community to suffer housing cost inflation bc the college provides many well paying, steady jobs, but it would be nice if the students would take it upon themselves to mitigate their negative impact on the housing market by informing themselves about the community and getting involved with organizations like Hope, John Graham, CVOEO, and ACCT that are trying to combat rising home prices and enable the people who work in Middlebury to live here too. Many middkids already do, which is awesome bc you have a lot on your plates, but I think this article showed that there is room for improvement. It betrayed a certain level of ignorance, but it also showed empathy and a dedication to the community. So get out there!
And the problem looks like it will probably get worse, with Addison County losing one of its essential advocates for people in need of housing: http://www.addisonindependent.com/?q=node/2079/lightbox2
I also think the article came off as insensitive, making a joke out of a serious and not uncommon situation. I hope the family found help, and I hope Public Safety did more than simply "escort them off campus".
That said, I probably would have treated the situation the same way when I was at Midd...if I could do it all over again, I would get off campus more. Duh, rural homelessness is a problem, but you don't really think about it when you're at Midd.
I hope the students involved in this incident (and the reporter) take it to heart and get more involved in the community. It was a little ironic to read this in the same issue of the Campus that reported on the "housing crisis" on campus. While the college does many wonderful things for the town, there are some ways that it exacerbates the town-gown relationship, and one of those ways is housing. Midd controls the number of students who live off campus, but the students and their generally large purses still have an effect on pushing up housing costs in the community. In many ways, it is worth it to the community to suffer housing cost inflation bc the college provides many well paying, steady jobs, but it would be nice if the students would take it upon themselves to mitigate their negative impact on the housing market by informing themselves about the community and getting involved with organizations like Hope, John Graham, CVOEO, and ACCT that are trying to combat rising home prices and enable the people who work in Middlebury to live here too. Many middkids already do, which is awesome bc you have a lot on your plates, but I think this article showed that there is room for improvement. It betrayed a certain level of ignorance, but it also showed empathy and a dedication to the community. So get out there!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Stiglitz Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1238594643-f9+hXpteoLkYq3OCVdVn4g
good article... i have a bunch of stiglitz books on my reading list. I just think everyone is stubbornly hoping that the assets are undervalued right now. Here is where Stiglitz's (more realistic) assumption differs from that perspective: "The real issue is that the banks made bad loans in a bubble and were highly leveraged. They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced." What the administration (and lots of people) is stubbornly hoping is that banks have only "lost their capital" insofar as no one wants to buy the assets right now due to a lack of confidence (hence the whole issue with mark to market), but fundamentally the assets still have value. Stiglitz is saying get real, most of the assets are worthless (thanks, housing bubble), hence the collapse. Maybe the admin thinks that if it can prop up the housing market, then the assets will be worth something.
good article... i have a bunch of stiglitz books on my reading list. I just think everyone is stubbornly hoping that the assets are undervalued right now. Here is where Stiglitz's (more realistic) assumption differs from that perspective: "The real issue is that the banks made bad loans in a bubble and were highly leveraged. They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced." What the administration (and lots of people) is stubbornly hoping is that banks have only "lost their capital" insofar as no one wants to buy the assets right now due to a lack of confidence (hence the whole issue with mark to market), but fundamentally the assets still have value. Stiglitz is saying get real, most of the assets are worthless (thanks, housing bubble), hence the collapse. Maybe the admin thinks that if it can prop up the housing market, then the assets will be worth something.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26collins.html?_r=1
In summary, there appears to be only two constants in our ever-changing world. One is that Barack Obama is going to be on television every day forever. No venue is too strange. Soon, he’ll be on “Dancing With the Stars” (“And now, doing the Health Care, Energy and Education tango ...”)
hehe
can you imagine W on dancing with the stars? i think that would totally work. it would improve his ratings, and i think the Freedom Ballroom would be a much better legacy for him than the Freedom Library.
hehe
can you imagine W on dancing with the stars? i think that would totally work. it would improve his ratings, and i think the Freedom Ballroom would be a much better legacy for him than the Freedom Library.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Dear Mr. DeSantis...
Dear Mr. DeSantis,
I sympathize with your predicament, being scapegoated for something you didn't have a hand in directly. You know, not all taxpayers got out their pitchforks and demanded the return of your bonuses, either, but you seem intent on punishing us all with your resignation. Your public letter did earn some empathy from me, but it certainly didn't make me like you. I understand your legitimate desire to resign. Whether or not you "deserved" the full amount of the retention payment, it was a necessary payment and the contract should have been honored or at least renegotiated with notice and respect to you. However, it would have been a really big gesture, worthy of an op-ed in the New York Times, had your ultimate decision been to suck it up and get back to work.
I take solace in the fact that you apparently didn't know enough about credit default swaps to be a whistleblower for your division, which mitigates the loss of your efforts in unraveling them.
All the best in your new career,
A Taxpayer
I sympathize with your predicament, being scapegoated for something you didn't have a hand in directly. You know, not all taxpayers got out their pitchforks and demanded the return of your bonuses, either, but you seem intent on punishing us all with your resignation. Your public letter did earn some empathy from me, but it certainly didn't make me like you. I understand your legitimate desire to resign. Whether or not you "deserved" the full amount of the retention payment, it was a necessary payment and the contract should have been honored or at least renegotiated with notice and respect to you. However, it would have been a really big gesture, worthy of an op-ed in the New York Times, had your ultimate decision been to suck it up and get back to work.
I take solace in the fact that you apparently didn't know enough about credit default swaps to be a whistleblower for your division, which mitigates the loss of your efforts in unraveling them.
All the best in your new career,
A Taxpayer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Rant for the Day
I like Meghan McCain. This is on the basis of having read maybe 3 of her articles and I'm sure we disagree on a lot of things, but I like her. Maybe because I can relate to her as a Class of 07 grad from a top tier school. In any case, my rant has not to do with Laura Ingraham's disgusting personal slur against her body image, but rather with ABC's coverage of the verbal back-and-forth between the two women. The issue here is first of all fixating on size in a public arena where it should be irrelevant, but also the issue of it being socially acceptable for a woman to make this kind of comment about another woman. (The backlash against Ingraham would actually suggest the opposite, that it is not socially acceptable; in any case the publicity is good for them both.) I'm ranting because Meghan responded gracefully about respecting women for their ideas, and ABC had the fucking nerve to title an article "GOP Catfight Gets Personal."
I understand they are in the business of grabbing attention with headlines. I don't care. This f-ing makes me sick. The news industry obviously needs to rethink it's entire business ethic for a number of reasons. Let's hope that whatever they come up with doesn't corrupt the news with vulgar commercialism.
I understand they are in the business of grabbing attention with headlines. I don't care. This f-ing makes me sick. The news industry obviously needs to rethink it's entire business ethic for a number of reasons. Let's hope that whatever they come up with doesn't corrupt the news with vulgar commercialism.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Good Reads
First, here's an op-ed about the financial crisis by David Smick, who is an impressive combination of incredibly smart and very easy to read. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Second, here's a site that tracks climate progress. I haven't explored it much yet, but there's certainly some heartening news on the homepage today, and we certainly could use some good news. http://climateprogress.org/
Second, here's a site that tracks climate progress. I haven't explored it much yet, but there's certainly some heartening news on the homepage today, and we certainly could use some good news. http://climateprogress.org/
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
In Response to Michael Gerson's 1/30/09 Op-Ed
Israel had the opportunity to further demonize Hamas if they had shown compassion to civilians by letting aidworkers and ambulances access the wounded. They could have claimed the high ground this way by underscoring Hamas' lack of concern for its own citizens. Instead, the family of a friend of mine lay dying in the street less than 2km from a hospital bc the IDF would not authorize an ambulance to reach them. Even the US armed forces know the importance of winning the "hearts and minds" campaign as well as the military one, and when Israel perpetrates war crimes such as these, it is losing many hearts and minds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903446.html
Musings
Sometimes i really like christianity...it provides such a compelling frame for arguments against budget cuts in programs like TANF... Bush was such a travesty in that he used Christianity in all the wrong ways, as a divisive tool in the culture war debate when he could have been saying things like "we should be expanding temporary assistance to needy families because the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and someday we might be that needy family"
Bailout
So, much of this nearly-trillion-dollar stimulus package will come through the states, and states facing budget shortfalls will suddenly find themselves with an abundance of funding to distribute. Are we ignoring this fact in our VT debate bc it is not final yet? Bc we will not be able to use the funds in a way that works with our budget, not outside it? It seems like nobody knows what is going on or what they are doing.
A Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
There is a heated debate in Vermont right now about how to make up a $200 million budget shortfall for fiscal year 2010. The Governor's approach is to focus on budget cuts rather than raising revenue. There are compelling arguments for maintaining or even augmenting the budgets of programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and VPHARM, which assist vulnerable Vermonters, while on the other side there are harsh realities that must be faced.
One area that faces cuts but does not have the visibility or human face of TANF or VPHARM is housing. The Vermont Housing Conservation Board (VHCB) specifically faces cuts of $9 million, or 70% of its budget. Apart from the humanitarian issue that this could leave many Vermonters out in the cold, this move does not make economic sense. The reasons are myriad: loss of workforce housing and job cuts in the housing provider industry, to name a few. One reason close to home for me pertains to programs that help homeowners and first-time homebuyers. We should not be taking buyers out of the market when tighter credit is already forcing them out in droves. If the housing market collapses, so too do home equity, financial security, town grand lists, and as a result of the latter, schools.
Like it or not, budget cuts will have to be a reality in the coming years; however, the cuts should make sense and be tempered through revenue-raising measures such as modest tax increases and applications for federal aid. The federal government can work together with states to close budget gaps. Here's a proposal: rather than handing out billions as we did to the banks, Washington can share the burden with states through matching grants for every dollar cut or raised by the state.
No plan is perfect, but if we don't approach this problem creatively, the burden will fall on those Vermonters who can least afford it. And if nothing else, the recent cuts at IBM underscore that "those Vermonters" could be any one of us.
There is a heated debate in Vermont right now about how to make up a $200 million budget shortfall for fiscal year 2010. The Governor's approach is to focus on budget cuts rather than raising revenue. There are compelling arguments for maintaining or even augmenting the budgets of programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and VPHARM, which assist vulnerable Vermonters, while on the other side there are harsh realities that must be faced.
One area that faces cuts but does not have the visibility or human face of TANF or VPHARM is housing. The Vermont Housing Conservation Board (VHCB) specifically faces cuts of $9 million, or 70% of its budget. Apart from the humanitarian issue that this could leave many Vermonters out in the cold, this move does not make economic sense. The reasons are myriad: loss of workforce housing and job cuts in the housing provider industry, to name a few. One reason close to home for me pertains to programs that help homeowners and first-time homebuyers. We should not be taking buyers out of the market when tighter credit is already forcing them out in droves. If the housing market collapses, so too do home equity, financial security, town grand lists, and as a result of the latter, schools.
Like it or not, budget cuts will have to be a reality in the coming years; however, the cuts should make sense and be tempered through revenue-raising measures such as modest tax increases and applications for federal aid. The federal government can work together with states to close budget gaps. Here's a proposal: rather than handing out billions as we did to the banks, Washington can share the burden with states through matching grants for every dollar cut or raised by the state.
No plan is perfect, but if we don't approach this problem creatively, the burden will fall on those Vermonters who can least afford it. And if nothing else, the recent cuts at IBM underscore that "those Vermonters" could be any one of us.
Friday, January 16, 2009
I've been away for so long...
Not that things have stopped since the election, but I've lost a little momentum in bloviating about them. But I always enjoy it when Al agrees with me on something (or at least pretends to):
Alexandra: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011503149.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
i'm not sure how i feel about this
Sent at 10:23 AM on Friday
me: I think a lot of what he points out about Obama and continuity is correct, but I think he makes a leap from "Obama will continue Bush policies" to "Obama will continue Bush policies bc Bush got them right"
Alexandra: yeah agreed
Alexandra: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011503149.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
i'm not sure how i feel about this
Sent at 10:23 AM on Friday
me: I think a lot of what he points out about Obama and continuity is correct, but I think he makes a leap from "Obama will continue Bush policies" to "Obama will continue Bush policies bc Bush got them right"
Alexandra: yeah agreed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)