What you call someone who's been found guilty by a jury of the least serious of a number of charges against them and had the most serious charges end in mistrial after one juror refuses to convict. Blagojevicts and their attorneys often mistakenly and vociferously equate "hung jury" or "mistrial" with "not guilty." In general the more tenuous the jury poll to acquit, for example 11-1 guilty, the louder the Blagojevict and his attorney(s) scream that he was found innocent.
I would like to claim credit for coming up with this term, but a Google search revealed one earlier instance of its usage, in a comment on Huffington Post two years ago.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Iron(y) deficiency
From the Tribune's sports page Thursday afternoon. I'd like to think the headline under the photo of Tiger Woods was intentional, but probably not. At the N.Y. Post, it would have been, but not at the Trib. Tip o' the cap to "Scoop" Davis.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
One more thing on CTA parking
This is the sign that greets customers entering the Western Ave. lot on the Orange Line. I guess to the CTA, "All Day" means 12 hours.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
CTA Parking – A Missed Opportunity for Change
Today I have been engaged in a fruitless battle to promote logic and transparency in a tiny corner of the universe: Chicago Transit Authority parking lots.
To set the stage, since 2004 I've used park-and-ride lots along the Orange Line as part of my daily commute. It used to be you'd pull into a numbered space and slip your $2, folded neatly, into the corresponding numbered slot in the metal pay boxes located in each lot. In 2009, the fee went up to $4. The parking rates were listed on signs in the lots as being $2 or (later) $4 "Per Day."
One could park in a CTA park-and-ride lot along the Orange Line in the morning, ride the train into downtown, work all day, go to a sporting event or a concert or a movie at night, and return to one's car at 10:30, 11, or later, to find the car still in the lot and ticketless. I can't speak to the odd broken window, because I don't leave anything that even appears to have value in sight in my car. Hence I have never been broken into. Someone did mess with the valve stems in my car once, though, but I digress.
Then in late 2009, the CTA awarded the parking lot management contract to Central Parking Services. CPS eventually installed new electronic pay boxes, making the old metal ones obsolete.
A few weeks ago, shortly after the new electronic pay boxes were installed, new signs were installed above the electronic pay boxes at the Western station indicating the $4 parking rate was for 12 hours. This seemed like a pretty big change, since as I mentioned the old signs indicated the fee was "per day," which to me means 24 hours. A CPS employee checking the boxes one morning said not to worry, that CPS checked the lots after the morning rush hour and later in the afternoon. No one checked them at night.
Then on March 17, as we had many times before, my wife and I parked in the lot at 7:30 a.m., went to work, did an after-work thing and returned to the lot at about 8:20 p.m. Only this time someone named "Fabian" had carefully placed a computer-printed $49 ticket in an envelope under the driver's side windshield wiper. We had overstayed our 12-hour limit, according to the ticket.
I was fuming. I thought the CTA had just doubled the parking rate again after doubling it in 2009 from $2 to $4. I began poking around the Internet and found this story about the new pay boxes, which makes reference to the $4 "per day" rate. I looked around the CTA web site, but somehow missed this item from 2008, which clearly mentions the 12-hour limit at Orange Line and other lots, and this page, which details parking rates. Had I found either, it would have come as a shock, given that I'd never received a ticket for exceeding a 12-hour time limit on parking.
I fired off an angry email to the CTA Tattler's Kevin O'Neil. He asked the CTA about it and was told that Orange Line lots always had 12-hour time limits, and thus there had been no change in rates or policy. Which is technically true, so I really don't have much on which to hang my hat of indignation.
Except for this: As I mentioned, up until a few weeks ago none of the parking signs that I had seen in the CTA Orange Line lots included a reference to a 12-hour limit. They all read "Per Day." Even the CTA's own 2009 announcement of the change in the parking lot servicing vendors makes reference to the $4 figure, but without including a time frame:
Not "$4 per 12 hours," not even "$4 per day." It's as if it was intentionally left vague, but more likely whomever wrote it didn't feel the need to explain further. The rates are what they are, everyone must already know the time frames, or have access to the Internet to look them up.
So I'm going to have to eat it on the 12-hour thing, because even though it was not well-publicized in the lots, to put it mildly (a more jaded person might say "even though the CTA misled people"), there is in fact documentation on the Internet in which the CTA notes the 12-hour limit. So I'm wrong.
But here are a couple of questions I've been thinking about as I have pondered my wrongness:
1. Where is the logic in the 12-hour time limit? A CTA spokesperson told the CTA Tattler's Kevin O'Neil that the CTA wants to discourage overnight parking by airport users, so as to make more spaces available to morning commuters. OK, fine. Good intent. But what difference does a 12-hour time limit make? Just make the cutoff midnight and ticket everyone in the lot at 12:01 a.m. who hasn't yet paid for that day. Problem solved.
2. Once the CTA applies No. 1, it could easily throw out the antiquated notion of only allowing customers to purchase time in 12-hour blocks. This supposes that the only people using mass transit work 9-to-5 jobs downtown and want to get home for dinner. And maybe that was true, but not for at least the last decade or so. Today's mass transit users likely to want to stay downtown after work and enjoy its amenities, or just as likely they may be unable to fit their commute and workday into a 12-hour window. A 12-hour time limit on parking only serves to drive them into their cars and onto the roads.
If we're following the hard midnight cutoff rule, as long as there is more time between when I park and midnight than time I want to buy, I should be able to buy that time. Obviously the technology exists to make that happen. Chicago Parking Meters LLC, the company that won the right to lease the City of Chicago's street parking system, just got through installing machines that allow people to buy time in 15-minute increments. I suspect these new CPS machines in the CTA lots could be programmed to dole out time by the hour. They've somehow figured it out at the Cumberland lot on the Blue Line.
Think, people. Just a little bit. Is there any room left for common sense and logic?
I'm not under any illusion that writing about this will accomplish anything. I don't have that kind of reach or influence. I'm sure I've worn out my welcome with Kevin O'Neil. I sent a note to the Tribune's transportation writer, Jon Hilkevitch, earlier this afternoon hoping he'd write about this parking thing in his "Getting Around" column, but I repeated some of the same misinformation in that note that I sent to O'Neil. I've come across as exactly the kind of ill-informed hothead I used to hate when I was a reporter, and I've fucked myself into irrelevance on this issue in the process.
And so the CTA will continue to charge $4 for 12 hours of parking, thus requiring commuters to plug the meter again after 12 hours. That will force at least this proponent of public transportation into his car on any day he has after-work plans. It's just so stupid and short-sighted. And for what? So that a few people won't park overnight in CTA lots? Jesus Christ, the lots along the Orange Line are more than half-empty these days as it is. Besides, prohibiting people from parking overnight is an easy enforcement issue; it doesn't have to be a rate issue.
But nothing will change. Institutional myopia.
If the CTA doesn't learn anything, though, at least I have. Instead of firing off angry and indignant emails looking to right what to me are obvious wrongs, and making incorrect statements and assertions in the process, I'm going to back off, calm down and come correct. The only real way to fight the avalanche of injustice and stupidity we encounter every day is with facts and reason. Passion is essential, but it must be rooted in truth.
It is from this point that I march forward.
The Indignant Citizen
To set the stage, since 2004 I've used park-and-ride lots along the Orange Line as part of my daily commute. It used to be you'd pull into a numbered space and slip your $2, folded neatly, into the corresponding numbered slot in the metal pay boxes located in each lot. In 2009, the fee went up to $4. The parking rates were listed on signs in the lots as being $2 or (later) $4 "Per Day."
One could park in a CTA park-and-ride lot along the Orange Line in the morning, ride the train into downtown, work all day, go to a sporting event or a concert or a movie at night, and return to one's car at 10:30, 11, or later, to find the car still in the lot and ticketless. I can't speak to the odd broken window, because I don't leave anything that even appears to have value in sight in my car. Hence I have never been broken into. Someone did mess with the valve stems in my car once, though, but I digress.
Then in late 2009, the CTA awarded the parking lot management contract to Central Parking Services. CPS eventually installed new electronic pay boxes, making the old metal ones obsolete.
A few weeks ago, shortly after the new electronic pay boxes were installed, new signs were installed above the electronic pay boxes at the Western station indicating the $4 parking rate was for 12 hours. This seemed like a pretty big change, since as I mentioned the old signs indicated the fee was "per day," which to me means 24 hours. A CPS employee checking the boxes one morning said not to worry, that CPS checked the lots after the morning rush hour and later in the afternoon. No one checked them at night.
Then on March 17, as we had many times before, my wife and I parked in the lot at 7:30 a.m., went to work, did an after-work thing and returned to the lot at about 8:20 p.m. Only this time someone named "Fabian" had carefully placed a computer-printed $49 ticket in an envelope under the driver's side windshield wiper. We had overstayed our 12-hour limit, according to the ticket.
I was fuming. I thought the CTA had just doubled the parking rate again after doubling it in 2009 from $2 to $4. I began poking around the Internet and found this story about the new pay boxes, which makes reference to the $4 "per day" rate. I looked around the CTA web site, but somehow missed this item from 2008, which clearly mentions the 12-hour limit at Orange Line and other lots, and this page, which details parking rates. Had I found either, it would have come as a shock, given that I'd never received a ticket for exceeding a 12-hour time limit on parking.
I fired off an angry email to the CTA Tattler's Kevin O'Neil. He asked the CTA about it and was told that Orange Line lots always had 12-hour time limits, and thus there had been no change in rates or policy. Which is technically true, so I really don't have much on which to hang my hat of indignation.
Except for this: As I mentioned, up until a few weeks ago none of the parking signs that I had seen in the CTA Orange Line lots included a reference to a 12-hour limit. They all read "Per Day." Even the CTA's own 2009 announcement of the change in the parking lot servicing vendors makes reference to the $4 figure, but without including a time frame:
"Parking is available for approximately 6,600 cars at facilities adjacent to 17 CTA rail stations throughout the CTA system. Rates are $5 at Rosemont and Forest Park and $4 at all other locations."
Not "$4 per 12 hours," not even "$4 per day." It's as if it was intentionally left vague, but more likely whomever wrote it didn't feel the need to explain further. The rates are what they are, everyone must already know the time frames, or have access to the Internet to look them up.
So I'm going to have to eat it on the 12-hour thing, because even though it was not well-publicized in the lots, to put it mildly (a more jaded person might say "even though the CTA misled people"), there is in fact documentation on the Internet in which the CTA notes the 12-hour limit. So I'm wrong.
But here are a couple of questions I've been thinking about as I have pondered my wrongness:
1. Where is the logic in the 12-hour time limit? A CTA spokesperson told the CTA Tattler's Kevin O'Neil that the CTA wants to discourage overnight parking by airport users, so as to make more spaces available to morning commuters. OK, fine. Good intent. But what difference does a 12-hour time limit make? Just make the cutoff midnight and ticket everyone in the lot at 12:01 a.m. who hasn't yet paid for that day. Problem solved.
2. Once the CTA applies No. 1, it could easily throw out the antiquated notion of only allowing customers to purchase time in 12-hour blocks. This supposes that the only people using mass transit work 9-to-5 jobs downtown and want to get home for dinner. And maybe that was true, but not for at least the last decade or so. Today's mass transit users likely to want to stay downtown after work and enjoy its amenities, or just as likely they may be unable to fit their commute and workday into a 12-hour window. A 12-hour time limit on parking only serves to drive them into their cars and onto the roads.
If we're following the hard midnight cutoff rule, as long as there is more time between when I park and midnight than time I want to buy, I should be able to buy that time. Obviously the technology exists to make that happen. Chicago Parking Meters LLC, the company that won the right to lease the City of Chicago's street parking system, just got through installing machines that allow people to buy time in 15-minute increments. I suspect these new CPS machines in the CTA lots could be programmed to dole out time by the hour. They've somehow figured it out at the Cumberland lot on the Blue Line.
Think, people. Just a little bit. Is there any room left for common sense and logic?
I'm not under any illusion that writing about this will accomplish anything. I don't have that kind of reach or influence. I'm sure I've worn out my welcome with Kevin O'Neil. I sent a note to the Tribune's transportation writer, Jon Hilkevitch, earlier this afternoon hoping he'd write about this parking thing in his "Getting Around" column, but I repeated some of the same misinformation in that note that I sent to O'Neil. I've come across as exactly the kind of ill-informed hothead I used to hate when I was a reporter, and I've fucked myself into irrelevance on this issue in the process.
And so the CTA will continue to charge $4 for 12 hours of parking, thus requiring commuters to plug the meter again after 12 hours. That will force at least this proponent of public transportation into his car on any day he has after-work plans. It's just so stupid and short-sighted. And for what? So that a few people won't park overnight in CTA lots? Jesus Christ, the lots along the Orange Line are more than half-empty these days as it is. Besides, prohibiting people from parking overnight is an easy enforcement issue; it doesn't have to be a rate issue.
But nothing will change. Institutional myopia.
If the CTA doesn't learn anything, though, at least I have. Instead of firing off angry and indignant emails looking to right what to me are obvious wrongs, and making incorrect statements and assertions in the process, I'm going to back off, calm down and come correct. The only real way to fight the avalanche of injustice and stupidity we encounter every day is with facts and reason. Passion is essential, but it must be rooted in truth.
It is from this point that I march forward.
The Indignant Citizen
Monday, March 08, 2010
Secret Senate, Part Deux
"America's politics remain corrupt, populated by nonentities whose main concern once elected is to stay elected...."
- Simon Heffer, writing in the London Telegraph
In this edition, I extend an olive branch to Senator Cullerton, and ask a few more pointed questions.
Dear Senator Cullerton,
It's been more than two weeks since I wrote you about the closed-to-the-public caucus meeting to discuss state and national budgeting issues. I had also written to my state senator, Ed Maloney, asking whether he supported your reasoning behind closing the caucus meeting. I never heard back from either of you.
Admittedly, I didn't really expect to. You're both busy with state business … or maybe in your case with your lobbying business. If I were a cynic, I'd say your failure to respond is tied to the fact that neither you nor Sen. Maloney is up for election this year. In the political calculation it seems constituents are only worth paying attention to when they can offer something to a politician. For those of us constituents without money or connections, that "something" is a vote, and in an off-election year a vote ain't worth much. Certainly not the time to craft a response to a question, much less a complaint.
What am I saying … "if" I were a cynic. I AM a cynic! I used to be just a practiced skeptic. Lately, though, I've fallen off the wall and landed with a thud among the cynics. They are My People. Perhaps that came through in my earlier note to you, and probably this one, too. So maybe we've gotten off on the wrong foot, here.
After all, as someone who doesn't live in your district and doesn't contribute to your political campaign, what right have I to address you and expect a response? None. Sen. Maloney is another matter. I do expect a response from him, and I'm sending him a separate note telling him so. But you, Sen. Cullerton, you've got no reason to reply to one of what I assume had to be hundreds, maybe thousands of emails and letters and phone calls criticizing your decision to call the Illinois State Senate together in a closed session under the guise of calling it a "caucus meeting." No doubt there was a good amount of criticism leveled at your defense of the meeting, as well.
Although frankly I don't understand why you didn't have your staff draft a generic letter reiterating your defense of the meeting and at the same time acknowledging the public outrage and vowing never to do it again. Then I figured you probably plan to do it again, so why bother lying? In political terms, that's pretty stark honesty and in a way I oddly respect it; in the same way that some people come to understand that happiness is merely the remission of pain.
Perhaps that's some ground upon which we can forge a new relationship.
Wow, OK, that feels better. I feel less like a demanding ogre and hopefully you don't feel like I'm unfairly attacking you this time. So with the figurative goodwill hug and mutual back patting out of the way, let me ask you: What did you and your senate colleagues learn from that meeting? In corporate parlance, what was the take-away? And how will whatever you learned affect how you approach the upcoming budget negotiations?
Please don't feel like you have to respond to me directly; lord knows you don't have the time for that. But an op-ed in local newspapers would do, or a position paper distributed via your web site. After I'm just a person, like many others, trying to understand the process, and concerned, as I'm sure you are, about a $13 billion deficit in a $53 billion budget.
Sincerely,
The Indignant Citizen
- Simon Heffer, writing in the London Telegraph
In this edition, I extend an olive branch to Senator Cullerton, and ask a few more pointed questions.
Dear Senator Cullerton,
It's been more than two weeks since I wrote you about the closed-to-the-public caucus meeting to discuss state and national budgeting issues. I had also written to my state senator, Ed Maloney, asking whether he supported your reasoning behind closing the caucus meeting. I never heard back from either of you.
Admittedly, I didn't really expect to. You're both busy with state business … or maybe in your case with your lobbying business. If I were a cynic, I'd say your failure to respond is tied to the fact that neither you nor Sen. Maloney is up for election this year. In the political calculation it seems constituents are only worth paying attention to when they can offer something to a politician. For those of us constituents without money or connections, that "something" is a vote, and in an off-election year a vote ain't worth much. Certainly not the time to craft a response to a question, much less a complaint.
What am I saying … "if" I were a cynic. I AM a cynic! I used to be just a practiced skeptic. Lately, though, I've fallen off the wall and landed with a thud among the cynics. They are My People. Perhaps that came through in my earlier note to you, and probably this one, too. So maybe we've gotten off on the wrong foot, here.
After all, as someone who doesn't live in your district and doesn't contribute to your political campaign, what right have I to address you and expect a response? None. Sen. Maloney is another matter. I do expect a response from him, and I'm sending him a separate note telling him so. But you, Sen. Cullerton, you've got no reason to reply to one of what I assume had to be hundreds, maybe thousands of emails and letters and phone calls criticizing your decision to call the Illinois State Senate together in a closed session under the guise of calling it a "caucus meeting." No doubt there was a good amount of criticism leveled at your defense of the meeting, as well.
Although frankly I don't understand why you didn't have your staff draft a generic letter reiterating your defense of the meeting and at the same time acknowledging the public outrage and vowing never to do it again. Then I figured you probably plan to do it again, so why bother lying? In political terms, that's pretty stark honesty and in a way I oddly respect it; in the same way that some people come to understand that happiness is merely the remission of pain.
Perhaps that's some ground upon which we can forge a new relationship.
Wow, OK, that feels better. I feel less like a demanding ogre and hopefully you don't feel like I'm unfairly attacking you this time. So with the figurative goodwill hug and mutual back patting out of the way, let me ask you: What did you and your senate colleagues learn from that meeting? In corporate parlance, what was the take-away? And how will whatever you learned affect how you approach the upcoming budget negotiations?
Please don't feel like you have to respond to me directly; lord knows you don't have the time for that. But an op-ed in local newspapers would do, or a position paper distributed via your web site. After I'm just a person, like many others, trying to understand the process, and concerned, as I'm sure you are, about a $13 billion deficit in a $53 billion budget.
Sincerely,
The Indignant Citizen
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Secret Senate
In response to this story today in the Tribune - Illinois Senate holds private meeting at statehouse - I drafted this letter to Senate President John Cullerton:
Dear Senator Cullerton,
I read with interest in today's Chicago Tribune news of the Illinois Senate's closed-to-the-media (and by extension the public) caucus meeting to discuss state and national budgeting issues. In particular I noted this quote, attributed to you:
"You're missing the whole point," Cullerton said.
"This is meant to be one where just the senators are there to get information, but where they can also feel they can ask questions and ...have a free exchange of ideas without having to be worried about what the press might report."
With all due respect, sir, it's you who is missing the point; you and any of your senate colleagues who support a closed-door meeting to discuss issues clearly of interest to the public. I'm not sure which made me more angry: the meeting itself or your lazy, stupid and contemptuous justification for it. Ideas are free to be exchanged in any setting, regardless of who's nearby and whether or not they're carrying notepads and recorders. The only thing that prevents the free exchange of ideas in any setting is a lack of courage. The idea that elected officials need to be sheltered from the press to speak freely is laughable. Or maybe just cowardly.
You're not there to sound good; you're there to run the government ... in the open, not in secret. When government operates in secret, the seeds of distrust are sown. It should be evident by now that the long tradition of secrecy in Illinois government hasn't worked, at least not fiscally, and certainly not for the majority of us who aren't politically connected. It's time to try openness for a change. Rest assured I will work with whomever I need to - in the 6th District, the 18th District or anywhere else - to ensure you and any other senator who believes in the justification for this closed-door meeting today are voted out of office. You don't represent me, and for that I am thankful. (I will be contacting Sen. Maloney and asking whether he favored this meeting today and supported your feeble justification.) But as the Senate President, you are responsible to constituents outside your district. In this act today you were irresponsible.
Sincerely...
The Indignant Citizen
Dear Senator Cullerton,
I read with interest in today's Chicago Tribune news of the Illinois Senate's closed-to-the-media (and by extension the public) caucus meeting to discuss state and national budgeting issues. In particular I noted this quote, attributed to you:
"You're missing the whole point," Cullerton said.
"This is meant to be one where just the senators are there to get information, but where they can also feel they can ask questions and ...have a free exchange of ideas without having to be worried about what the press might report."
With all due respect, sir, it's you who is missing the point; you and any of your senate colleagues who support a closed-door meeting to discuss issues clearly of interest to the public. I'm not sure which made me more angry: the meeting itself or your lazy, stupid and contemptuous justification for it. Ideas are free to be exchanged in any setting, regardless of who's nearby and whether or not they're carrying notepads and recorders. The only thing that prevents the free exchange of ideas in any setting is a lack of courage. The idea that elected officials need to be sheltered from the press to speak freely is laughable. Or maybe just cowardly.
You're not there to sound good; you're there to run the government ... in the open, not in secret. When government operates in secret, the seeds of distrust are sown. It should be evident by now that the long tradition of secrecy in Illinois government hasn't worked, at least not fiscally, and certainly not for the majority of us who aren't politically connected. It's time to try openness for a change. Rest assured I will work with whomever I need to - in the 6th District, the 18th District or anywhere else - to ensure you and any other senator who believes in the justification for this closed-door meeting today are voted out of office. You don't represent me, and for that I am thankful. (I will be contacting Sen. Maloney and asking whether he favored this meeting today and supported your feeble justification.) But as the Senate President, you are responsible to constituents outside your district. In this act today you were irresponsible.
Sincerely...
The Indignant Citizen
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
The 80-20 rule of Public Service
The Tribune today published a story about a conviction in the case of a plumbing inspector accused of taking bribes to look the other way at a condo construction site. I posted a comment about the story: "This is dog-bites-man stuff. Find me the city inspector that's NOT on the take, and write a feature story about that person. If he or she exists."
Later, "Anon" posted a comment about the same story that partly responded to my comment. "Indignant, there are some great inspectors and honest people at City Hall. And then there's the slime. But don't paint everyone with such a broad brush."
True enough, Anon, and I apologize for using my broad brush. Look, I know 80 percent of the people in the world are either honest and caring or at least benign enough to not be overtly harmful. But the sheer greed, arrogance, stupidity and indifference of the other 20 percent is blinding sometimes.
The bald truth is that corruption is allowed to fester and infect an organization because it's accepted at the top, either openly (Cook County, the State of Illinois) or tacitly (the city of Chicago). From where I sit, at the table with the other everymen forced to watch the accelerating decay of the institutions through which we govern and serve, it's a sickening thing to read about another in a long line of corrupt officials more concerned with lining their own pockets than serving the public. And it's easy to forget the 20 part of the "80-20 rule."
So to all those public servants actually serving the public, and not expecting anything but gratitude and a government paycheck in return, thank you. To the Mario Olivellas of the world, go fuck yourselves.
The Indignant Citizen
Later, "Anon" posted a comment about the same story that partly responded to my comment. "Indignant, there are some great inspectors and honest people at City Hall. And then there's the slime. But don't paint everyone with such a broad brush."
True enough, Anon, and I apologize for using my broad brush. Look, I know 80 percent of the people in the world are either honest and caring or at least benign enough to not be overtly harmful. But the sheer greed, arrogance, stupidity and indifference of the other 20 percent is blinding sometimes.
The bald truth is that corruption is allowed to fester and infect an organization because it's accepted at the top, either openly (Cook County, the State of Illinois) or tacitly (the city of Chicago). From where I sit, at the table with the other everymen forced to watch the accelerating decay of the institutions through which we govern and serve, it's a sickening thing to read about another in a long line of corrupt officials more concerned with lining their own pockets than serving the public. And it's easy to forget the 20 part of the "80-20 rule."
So to all those public servants actually serving the public, and not expecting anything but gratitude and a government paycheck in return, thank you. To the Mario Olivellas of the world, go fuck yourselves.
The Indignant Citizen
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Flashback
Admittedly, it was an easy call. But still, it feels good to be right. Specifically, this part:
At 10:22 p.m., Stroger’s lead has shrunk to nine points, 54% to 45%.
Shortly before that, Gov. Rod Blagojevich told his supporters during his victory speech that Illinois residents “ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.” He’s probably right. We haven’t seen a sitting governor indicted in a while, for instance, and we ain’t seen “Gov. Pat Quinn” yet, either.
The Indignant Citizen
The Indignant Citizen
Monday, August 17, 2009
John John Mackey Takes You Inside Healthcare Reform
And I thought I was indignant.
The healthcare reform debate has brought out two distinct groups of Nazi finger-pointers: on the right are those who paint President Obama as Hitler and his healthcare plan as the second coming of the Third Reich, while on the left are those who think the anti-reformers disrupting town hall meetings are using Nazi tactics. It's out of control.
The Nazis were worse than motherfuckers. They plotted to take over the world and exterminate an entire race of people in the process, and they got a good way toward those goals before getting bitch-slapped so hard the German people have been stigmatized for two generations. Well Germany is back, and fortunately the Nazis did not come with it. So—and I know this is a lot to ask in today's America, but—let's leave off the Nazi name-calling (unless you really are one) and engage in real debate.
But where to start? An issue as big and complex as this one tends to trigger the worst of our culture's verbal diarrhea. It's my opinion that yes, we should find a way to make sure everyone has access to health insurance at a reasonable cost. The government should have a role in that. But I don't necessarily think a giant, single-payer system is the best option right now. It could be, in the future, but not now.
One set of talking points that has received a lot of attention lately is the op-ed piece Whole Foods Chief Executive John Mackey wrote for The Wall Street Journal last week. Mackey drew a lot of criticism not just for his pro-business, anti-reform-as-proposed stance as for infuriating his biggest customer base: wealthy liberals. Oops.
But in a sense Mackey has been the recipient of the same kind of over-the-top antagonism that has been directed at Obama and Democrats. I don't agree with everything Mackey wrote, but at least it's a reasonable entry in the debate about health care reform. Let's take it point-by-point:
That's a good start.
Actually the last thing we need is inflamed and hyperbolic rhetoric that obscures the issues and stokes people's unrealistic fears. But it's a fair point that you don't support a government-run health care system. I don't necessarily agree for the long-term, but as I said for right now a single-payer, government-run system is not feasible.
Spoken like a man who's never had to worry about health insurance ever in his life. "High-deductible health insurance plans" coupled with the phrase "health savings accounts" essentially means poor people will still be forced to fork over thousands of dollars they can't afford for medical care. Such a plan would likely lead participants to put off exactly the kind of preventive medical care we're talking about and they'd wind up in the hospital anyway. Mackey even tacitly acknowledges this when he writes, "This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully."
Yes, participants in a Mackey plan would be able to set up health savings accounts funded with pre-tax money, but when you're making minimum wage, it doesn't really matter whether the dollars are pre-tax or post-tax; you can't afford it anyway.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Vague, but I agree.
Agreed.
You mean like, encourage seniors to meet with their doctors periodically to discuss care as they age, and what care seniors would like to receive as they approach the end of their lives? Oh, wait, that's a "death panel." Now see, I've just engaged in exactly the type of sarcastic, nonproductive rhetoric about which I've been complaining. On a serious note, wouldn't it be great if health care reform obviated the need for Medicare and Medicaid altogether? The processes could be reformed—and the wasteful, old and inefficient parts eliminated—as it was absorbed into a new entity that covered everyone.
Naturally, this would make sense to someone making enough that he's looking to reduce his tax burden. Every little bit helps, I suppose, but I hope Mackey isn't proposing this as the funding solution.
See what just happened? John and I just engaged in a little exchange of viewpoints there. I agree with some of his proposals, but not all of them. I'm certainly not willing to dismiss his entire piece simply because he offended me with the first point he made.
There's room for compromise, people, and debate, without resorting to blatant distortions and lies. This is a serious issue and it should be debated by serious people with serious ideas. Unfortunately that eliminates 90% of the coverage and commentary in the mainstream media (read: Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann) and about half of what one reads on the Internet (Sarah Palin's Facebook page).
But serious people should be able to muddle through anyway.
The Indignant Citizen
Friday, August 14, 2009
Debt Watch
A couple of seemingly unrelated stories in the local papers today are, in fact, related by one common thread: debt.
First up, the Chicago Tribune. The only thing worse than shareholders owning newspapers is the thought of banks owning newspapers.
And second, I can't say I'm surprised, but here's news of more trouble for Garrett Kelleher's Chicago Spire boondoggle. Bank of America is suing Kelleher's Shelbourne Development, claiming the developer defaulted on the terms of a loan B of A extended to him.
The Indignant Citizen
First up, the Chicago Tribune. The only thing worse than shareholders owning newspapers is the thought of banks owning newspapers.
And second, I can't say I'm surprised, but here's news of more trouble for Garrett Kelleher's Chicago Spire boondoggle. Bank of America is suing Kelleher's Shelbourne Development, claiming the developer defaulted on the terms of a loan B of A extended to him.
The Indignant Citizen
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Jim Oh-fer-five
Democrat Bill Foster defeated Republican dairy magnate Jim Oberweis for the second time in the 14th Congressional District Tuesday night. That's Dennis Hastert's old seat. Foster won a special election to replace Dennis Hastert in March, and this time around Foster's margin of victory was even bigger than it was in the spring. Oberweis, for those of you who don't know, is the hypocritical anti-illegal immigration crusader who has now lost five elections: for U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2004, for governor in 2005 and now twice for Congress this year in Hastert's district.Again I say it's time to hang it up, Jim.
The Indignant Citizen
President Barack Obama
How fucking cool is it write that? Turns out I needn't have worried. Truthfully I was apprehensive about the American public's capacity to focus on the issues facing this country and ignore the noise. But score one for for my fellow citizens.
I'm exhausted, but over the next couple of days I'll try to put together some thoughts on what it was like to be in Grant Park tonight, with 125,000 other people, cheering for a candidate that maybe not everyone believed in at the beginning, but who we gradually infused with our hope for a better future. I'll tell you this, the call by CNN on the big screen TV that Obama had won came suddenly after a commercial break at 10 p.m. Central Time. The crowd where we were standing, near the Petrillo Bandshell, erupted in shouts and whistles and hugs, along with shouts of "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma" and "Yes we did!" People were jumping up and down; groups of people bounced with their arms around one another, flashbulbs popped. It was as much a sense of relief as it was joy that swept across the crowd in Grant Park. Relief that Obama had won and relief that the result was known relatively early.
I'm filled with optimism tonight. The historical magnitude of what's occurred will take some time to sink in completely. But the emotion of it all hit everyone in Grant Park upside the head immediately. It's good to feel ... good about the president again.
The Indignant Citizen
I'm exhausted, but over the next couple of days I'll try to put together some thoughts on what it was like to be in Grant Park tonight, with 125,000 other people, cheering for a candidate that maybe not everyone believed in at the beginning, but who we gradually infused with our hope for a better future. I'll tell you this, the call by CNN on the big screen TV that Obama had won came suddenly after a commercial break at 10 p.m. Central Time. The crowd where we were standing, near the Petrillo Bandshell, erupted in shouts and whistles and hugs, along with shouts of "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma" and "Yes we did!" People were jumping up and down; groups of people bounced with their arms around one another, flashbulbs popped. It was as much a sense of relief as it was joy that swept across the crowd in Grant Park. Relief that Obama had won and relief that the result was known relatively early.
I'm filled with optimism tonight. The historical magnitude of what's occurred will take some time to sink in completely. But the emotion of it all hit everyone in Grant Park upside the head immediately. It's good to feel ... good about the president again.
The Indignant Citizen
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
A Long Day Turns to Night
I know a lot of folks are feeling optimistic about an Obama victory tonight in the presidential election, but I can't shake this sense of foreboding.
Shortly after polling places opened there were reports of long lines, inept election officials, the Black Panthers patrolling one precinct in Philadelphia, wet ballots in Virginia and myriad other problems in swing states that either Barack Obama or John McCain must win to win the White House.
Here in Chicago the day dawned sunny and there was a giddiness in the air. The stage seemed set for an election night party, with warm temperatures, no rain and an entire lakefront park waiting to be filled with folks eager to be as near as possible to history—an Obama win. Or at least, that was the Hope. The reality could still turn out to be quite different.
If these reports of lines and faulty electronic voting machines and wiggy ballot handling persist, and some of these swing states that have looked for weeks as though they were leaning toward Obama start showing McCain tendencies instead, I think we'll see protests in Chicago and plenty of people hollering "disenfranchisement" and "fraud" and maybe even "revolution."
We should know not long after, say, 8 p.m. in Chicago whether voting irregularities in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia are serious enough to merit legal challenges. If so, this election may well be decided in the courts. If by, say, 10:30 p.m. in Chicago the electoral vote dominos haven't begun falling pretty clearly one way or the other, the night will likely end in an anticlimactic sense of frustration. What to do, then, with 200,000 or 500,000 or a million people with enough political conviction on one side of the ledger to wait for hours outside in November in downtown Chicago for a sense of resolution that never came? That's a scene that could get ugly in a hurry. Imagine July 3rd in Grant Park if 9:30 came and went with no fireworks, and no explanation. By 10:15 it'd be time to high-tail it out of the line of fire, bubba.
There is a chance that this election will be a landslide win for Obama. Personally, I hope so. A win by Obama would be a victory for intellectualism, for diplomacy and for racial advancement. It would be a repudiation of class warfare, demagoguery and this weird celebration of ignorance in which we've been engaged since the mid-1990s. If Obama ends up being half as good as I think he could be he'll still be twice as good as McCain at his best.
But there's a long night ahead before all that. My fear is that it will be a long night followed by many more long nights and days.
The Indignant Citizen
Shortly after polling places opened there were reports of long lines, inept election officials, the Black Panthers patrolling one precinct in Philadelphia, wet ballots in Virginia and myriad other problems in swing states that either Barack Obama or John McCain must win to win the White House.
Here in Chicago the day dawned sunny and there was a giddiness in the air. The stage seemed set for an election night party, with warm temperatures, no rain and an entire lakefront park waiting to be filled with folks eager to be as near as possible to history—an Obama win. Or at least, that was the Hope. The reality could still turn out to be quite different.
If these reports of lines and faulty electronic voting machines and wiggy ballot handling persist, and some of these swing states that have looked for weeks as though they were leaning toward Obama start showing McCain tendencies instead, I think we'll see protests in Chicago and plenty of people hollering "disenfranchisement" and "fraud" and maybe even "revolution."
We should know not long after, say, 8 p.m. in Chicago whether voting irregularities in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia are serious enough to merit legal challenges. If so, this election may well be decided in the courts. If by, say, 10:30 p.m. in Chicago the electoral vote dominos haven't begun falling pretty clearly one way or the other, the night will likely end in an anticlimactic sense of frustration. What to do, then, with 200,000 or 500,000 or a million people with enough political conviction on one side of the ledger to wait for hours outside in November in downtown Chicago for a sense of resolution that never came? That's a scene that could get ugly in a hurry. Imagine July 3rd in Grant Park if 9:30 came and went with no fireworks, and no explanation. By 10:15 it'd be time to high-tail it out of the line of fire, bubba.
There is a chance that this election will be a landslide win for Obama. Personally, I hope so. A win by Obama would be a victory for intellectualism, for diplomacy and for racial advancement. It would be a repudiation of class warfare, demagoguery and this weird celebration of ignorance in which we've been engaged since the mid-1990s. If Obama ends up being half as good as I think he could be he'll still be twice as good as McCain at his best.
But there's a long night ahead before all that. My fear is that it will be a long night followed by many more long nights and days.
The Indignant Citizen
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Spire Spike
I hate to say "I told you so," but I told you so.
Even my economic predictions were remarkably prescient, although perhaps I hedged my bets a bit too much in terms of the the downturn's severity. But in fact, my worst prediction appears to have come true: Kelleher actually managed to build some of the Spire before having to stop. The accompanying photo, along with many other fine shots, can be found here on the Boca del Mar Chicago Spire page.
The Indignant Citizen
Even my economic predictions were remarkably prescient, although perhaps I hedged my bets a bit too much in terms of the the downturn's severity. But in fact, my worst prediction appears to have come true: Kelleher actually managed to build some of the Spire before having to stop. The accompanying photo, along with many other fine shots, can be found here on the Boca del Mar Chicago Spire page.The Indignant Citizen
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Live Blogging the Last Presidential Debate
We had so much fun the last time, we're trying the live blogging again. Same rules apply, all times Central Daylight Time.
8:04 p.m. - Good start, John McCain remembered Barack Obama's name. But before that, this is two out of three debates that McCain has felt the need to give us a medical update of a prominent political figure. During the first debate, it was Teddy K., tonight it was Nancy Reagan.
8:06 p.m. - The debate comes on the evening of one of the worst days for the stock market since 1987. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 733 points, about 7.8%, the S&P 500 was down 9% and the Nasdaq was down 8.5%. Mostly this was due to bad economic numbers in terms of retail spending and the realization that consumers are cutting back. So now we open with a question about the two candidates' economic plans, and naturally the conversation comes around to tax policy. It's pretty straightforward: Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and on corporations and McCain wants to cut their taxes.
8:13 p.m. - John McCain: He wants to cut everyone's taxes! Cut business taxes! Cut, cut, cut. Of course, that sounds good but the reality is you do have to pay for stuff eventually. Maybe Bob Schieffer is going to get at this with this next question about the deficit.
8:14 p.m. - Obama is talking about "pay as you go" spending. McCain has a look on his face that's a combination of a smirk, bowel discomfort and anger that he's got to sit next to this guy.
8:16 p.m. - McCain: "We have presided over the largest increase in spending since the Great Society." Um, dude, that's you you're talking about when you say "we."
8:18 p.m. - Good grief, the "overhead projector" line again. It's not an overhead projector. Is he really an idiot, or does he just play one on TV?
8:21 - McCain: "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." It took him this long to come up with that? Try as he might, though, he'll never be able to run away from that photo of him hugging George Bush. And try as he might, he can't change the reality that he's voted with Bush 95% of the time.
8:27 p.m. - Schieffer asks about negative campaigning. McCain talks about Obama's spending and the John Lewis commnents. Obama says "one hundred percent" of McCain's ads are negative. McCain has completely misconstrued what Lewis was saying and I seriously doubt that all of McCain's ads are negative.
8:35 p.m. - McCain: Acorn is on the verge of perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in the history of the country? You mean bigger than the subprime mortgage fraud? (Addendum: OK, upon further review, he said voter fraud. But that begs the question: bigger than the voter disenfranchisement at the hands of Republican administrations in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?)
8:36 p.m. - Why is John McCain smiling? Because he's got Barack Obama defending himself against Bill Ayers, Acorn, negative campaigning, etc. "The fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, John, I think says a lot about your campaign."
McCain: My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, creating jobs and not raising taxes like Senator Obama wants to do. Kind of a weak exit there. He's got some fight in him, but the rumble road runs out pretty quick when it comes to facts. The important thing here tonight seems to be to engage in a kind of "political terrorism" that the old Bill Ayers would be proud of: throw bombs at your opponent, run away and hope some damage is done in the process.
8:46 p.m. - Talking about energy now. McCain is clearly taking a chance tonight. Every answer includes an attack on Obama of some kind. This is an all-or-nothing strategy at this point. McCain's body language, his facial expressions, the tone of his answers all point to direct confrontation. His goal tonight is to tear down Obama at all costs. Seventy-five percent of his answers, to me, are about discrediting what Obama has said or proposed, with a 25% "and I'll do it differently and better" thrown in somewhere almost as an afterthought. Even on the energy issue, it's all about tearing down what Obama says about offshore drilling ("we have to look at it," as opposed to we can do it now) and free-trade agreements ... very little on what his position is, other than "we can do nuclear, we must drill now and I'm a free-trader."
Also, just an aside, conservation, anyone? Anyone?
8:55 p.m. - McCain: Senator Obama doesn't want to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region and yet he wants to sit down across the table, without preconditions, with Hugo Chavez. It's clear he wants to restrict trade and raise taxes. Balls-to-the wall. It'll be interesting to see how McCain responds to this next question about health care. Obama is talking about the merits of his plan now.
8:58 p.m. - McCain's response: OK, he's starting with stuff he wants to do. About 20 seconds, maybe 30. Now it's on to attacking Obama's plan.
9 p.m. - Christ, enough with Joe the plumber.
9:02 p.m. - Obama responds, sort of, to McCain and then starts criticizing McCain's plan. Maybe it's time during this last half-hour to start ballin' with McCain.
9:05 p.m. - McCain: "Senator Government ... Senator Obama." Senator Government. That's funny.
9:06 p.m. - McCain says he never has had and never will have litmus tests for judges. That's not going to make the Roe opponents happy. "I will consider anyone and their consequences." Obama: I would not provide a litmus test, but I am someone who believes Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. I will look for those judges that have an outstanding judicial record, the intellect and a sense of what real-world people are going through.
9:16 p.m. - I'm still intrigued by McCain's tactics. He's even done some eye-rolling during Obama's responses. It still seems like a 70-30 ratio of attack Obama-promote his own policies. We could have saved a lot of time if McCain had just said at the outset: "Obama wants to spend more of your money, raise your taxes and control your health care. He pals around with ex-terrorists, which I don't care that much about but it speaks to his judgment and the fact that he's a dangerous man who we don't know much about. He doesn't understand how the world works and would be a foreign policy disaster. He's agaisnt all forms of alternative energy and drilling for more oil and wants you to ride mules to and from work." It would have taken about 60 seconds and then we could have spent the rest of the time talking about the issues.
9:23 p.m. - Vouchers. McCain supports them, and cites as the example the Washington, D.C. school system where apparently parents love them. Obama doesn't support them. Personally, I think the best remedies for education are improving schools so that there aren't such wide disparities between them, and encouraging parents to be more involved in their own childrens' education.
9:26 p.m. www.mydebates.org, to watch this debate and the previous debates.
9:28 p.m. - I think McCain just snort-laughed when he was mocking Obama's response on vouchers.
9:29 p.m. - Only Obama in his closing statement said simply and plainly, "I ask for your vote." McCain said we need "a new direction" and that he is that new direction. Unfortunately saying it often doesn't make it so.
9:31 p.m. - On pure raw politics, I'm tempted to give the debate to McCain. He attacked relentlessly, and backed up his promise to lay into Obama. But in the end Obama just comes across as more dignified, more composed, more diplomatic, more presidential. McCain dragged him through the mud, beat him repeatedly, and Obama smiled the whole time. Did Obama play it too cool? I don't think so. But McCain's only play was to lay it all on the table, to be exasperated, to be angry, to roll his eyes and sigh and constantly point out Obama's faults. It was his only move and he made it strongly.
In the end, though, I don't think that's going to change the momentum for him. Or rather against him. But as I've said my mind is made up. I like my presidents to act presidential, not like a crotchety old man.
The Indignant Citizen
8:04 p.m. - Good start, John McCain remembered Barack Obama's name. But before that, this is two out of three debates that McCain has felt the need to give us a medical update of a prominent political figure. During the first debate, it was Teddy K., tonight it was Nancy Reagan.
8:06 p.m. - The debate comes on the evening of one of the worst days for the stock market since 1987. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 733 points, about 7.8%, the S&P 500 was down 9% and the Nasdaq was down 8.5%. Mostly this was due to bad economic numbers in terms of retail spending and the realization that consumers are cutting back. So now we open with a question about the two candidates' economic plans, and naturally the conversation comes around to tax policy. It's pretty straightforward: Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and on corporations and McCain wants to cut their taxes.
8:13 p.m. - John McCain: He wants to cut everyone's taxes! Cut business taxes! Cut, cut, cut. Of course, that sounds good but the reality is you do have to pay for stuff eventually. Maybe Bob Schieffer is going to get at this with this next question about the deficit.
8:14 p.m. - Obama is talking about "pay as you go" spending. McCain has a look on his face that's a combination of a smirk, bowel discomfort and anger that he's got to sit next to this guy.
8:16 p.m. - McCain: "We have presided over the largest increase in spending since the Great Society." Um, dude, that's you you're talking about when you say "we."
8:18 p.m. - Good grief, the "overhead projector" line again. It's not an overhead projector. Is he really an idiot, or does he just play one on TV?
8:21 - McCain: "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." It took him this long to come up with that? Try as he might, though, he'll never be able to run away from that photo of him hugging George Bush. And try as he might, he can't change the reality that he's voted with Bush 95% of the time.8:27 p.m. - Schieffer asks about negative campaigning. McCain talks about Obama's spending and the John Lewis commnents. Obama says "one hundred percent" of McCain's ads are negative. McCain has completely misconstrued what Lewis was saying and I seriously doubt that all of McCain's ads are negative.
8:35 p.m. - McCain: Acorn is on the verge of perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in the history of the country? You mean bigger than the subprime mortgage fraud? (Addendum: OK, upon further review, he said voter fraud. But that begs the question: bigger than the voter disenfranchisement at the hands of Republican administrations in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?)
8:36 p.m. - Why is John McCain smiling? Because he's got Barack Obama defending himself against Bill Ayers, Acorn, negative campaigning, etc. "The fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, John, I think says a lot about your campaign."
McCain: My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, creating jobs and not raising taxes like Senator Obama wants to do. Kind of a weak exit there. He's got some fight in him, but the rumble road runs out pretty quick when it comes to facts. The important thing here tonight seems to be to engage in a kind of "political terrorism" that the old Bill Ayers would be proud of: throw bombs at your opponent, run away and hope some damage is done in the process.
8:46 p.m. - Talking about energy now. McCain is clearly taking a chance tonight. Every answer includes an attack on Obama of some kind. This is an all-or-nothing strategy at this point. McCain's body language, his facial expressions, the tone of his answers all point to direct confrontation. His goal tonight is to tear down Obama at all costs. Seventy-five percent of his answers, to me, are about discrediting what Obama has said or proposed, with a 25% "and I'll do it differently and better" thrown in somewhere almost as an afterthought. Even on the energy issue, it's all about tearing down what Obama says about offshore drilling ("we have to look at it," as opposed to we can do it now) and free-trade agreements ... very little on what his position is, other than "we can do nuclear, we must drill now and I'm a free-trader."
Also, just an aside, conservation, anyone? Anyone?
8:55 p.m. - McCain: Senator Obama doesn't want to sit down and negotiate a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region and yet he wants to sit down across the table, without preconditions, with Hugo Chavez. It's clear he wants to restrict trade and raise taxes. Balls-to-the wall. It'll be interesting to see how McCain responds to this next question about health care. Obama is talking about the merits of his plan now.
8:58 p.m. - McCain's response: OK, he's starting with stuff he wants to do. About 20 seconds, maybe 30. Now it's on to attacking Obama's plan.
9 p.m. - Christ, enough with Joe the plumber.
9:02 p.m. - Obama responds, sort of, to McCain and then starts criticizing McCain's plan. Maybe it's time during this last half-hour to start ballin' with McCain.
9:05 p.m. - McCain: "Senator Government ... Senator Obama." Senator Government. That's funny.
9:06 p.m. - McCain says he never has had and never will have litmus tests for judges. That's not going to make the Roe opponents happy. "I will consider anyone and their consequences." Obama: I would not provide a litmus test, but I am someone who believes Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. I will look for those judges that have an outstanding judicial record, the intellect and a sense of what real-world people are going through.
9:16 p.m. - I'm still intrigued by McCain's tactics. He's even done some eye-rolling during Obama's responses. It still seems like a 70-30 ratio of attack Obama-promote his own policies. We could have saved a lot of time if McCain had just said at the outset: "Obama wants to spend more of your money, raise your taxes and control your health care. He pals around with ex-terrorists, which I don't care that much about but it speaks to his judgment and the fact that he's a dangerous man who we don't know much about. He doesn't understand how the world works and would be a foreign policy disaster. He's agaisnt all forms of alternative energy and drilling for more oil and wants you to ride mules to and from work." It would have taken about 60 seconds and then we could have spent the rest of the time talking about the issues.
9:23 p.m. - Vouchers. McCain supports them, and cites as the example the Washington, D.C. school system where apparently parents love them. Obama doesn't support them. Personally, I think the best remedies for education are improving schools so that there aren't such wide disparities between them, and encouraging parents to be more involved in their own childrens' education.
9:26 p.m. www.mydebates.org, to watch this debate and the previous debates.
9:28 p.m. - I think McCain just snort-laughed when he was mocking Obama's response on vouchers.
9:29 p.m. - Only Obama in his closing statement said simply and plainly, "I ask for your vote." McCain said we need "a new direction" and that he is that new direction. Unfortunately saying it often doesn't make it so.
9:31 p.m. - On pure raw politics, I'm tempted to give the debate to McCain. He attacked relentlessly, and backed up his promise to lay into Obama. But in the end Obama just comes across as more dignified, more composed, more diplomatic, more presidential. McCain dragged him through the mud, beat him repeatedly, and Obama smiled the whole time. Did Obama play it too cool? I don't think so. But McCain's only play was to lay it all on the table, to be exasperated, to be angry, to roll his eyes and sigh and constantly point out Obama's faults. It was his only move and he made it strongly.
In the end, though, I don't think that's going to change the momentum for him. Or rather against him. But as I've said my mind is made up. I like my presidents to act presidential, not like a crotchety old man.
The Indignant Citizen
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Live blogging the town hall debate
Tonight we are hunkered down on the couch with a plate of pasta watching this second of three presidential debates. Thoughts follow below. All times are Central Daylight Time.
8:02 p.m. - Looks like I missed my opportunity to submit my question online. For the record, here it was: Senator McCain. Last month, as the financial crisis was beginning in earnest, you gave a speech in which you said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Without falling back on the assertion that you meant workers when you said "fundamentals," how would you describe the state of the economy now. I'm referring specifically to the fundamentals of the capital economy, not the workforce economy, since without capital workers do not get paid. How do you view the state of the capital markets and what if anything do you think needs to be done to shore them up? Please be specific and do not ply us with empty campaign rhetoric. The same question to Sen. Obama, minus the reference to the fundamentals being strong.
8:04 - A question on the economy, about bailing out regular folks. Obama says this is a verdict on the last eight years of free market policies. You can't regulate greed, Barack.
8:06 - McCain tells Obama it's good to be at a town hall debate with him. He says this without looking at him.
8:07 - Is McCain going to sit in the questioner's lap? He knows how to get the economy going for working Americans.
Brokaw follow-up - who will you appoint as Treasury Secretary? Warren Buffet. Meg Whitman. Someone who inspires trust and confidence. Actually a good answer. Obama agrees about Warren (another agreement with McCain). Now Obama is talking about middle-class tax cuts. "Senator McCain is right that we have to stabilize housing prices, but...." But Obama didn't answer the question.
8:14 - Obama: The biggest problem is deregulation of the financial system. Again, you can't regulate greed. The derivatives themselves weren't the problem; it's much more complex than that. And additional regulation will require additional resources for the regulatory agencies, which equals more government spending.
8:20 - Obama says he's proposing a net spending cut, in response to a question about why we should trust either candidate with our money given both parties' roles in the current financial crisis. McCain beats the reform gong. He suggests people visit "watchdog organizations" such as the Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union. CAGW is a conservative organization, while the NTU advocates for a flat tax.
8:26 - Obama's spending priorities: energy, healthcare, education. Also have to prioritize income, including tax cuts for the middle class but not continuing the Bush tax cuts.
8:29 - So far I can't say that any of these people are learning much about either candidate that they didn't know. All the familiar themes are being echoed, the same little potshots taken. Both men know how to move around the stage, address their questioners, show empathy. Both men are also going way over the agreed-upon time allotments, which is clearly getting on Tom Brokaw's nerves. But Obama is by and large being much more clear with specifics, as opposed to McCain's "I know how to do it" answers. The only question McCain has answered directly and clearly was who he would appoint as Treasury Secretary.
8:33 - A good follow up question from Tom Brokaw about what as president Obama would do about the culture of easy credit is an opportunity passed. Obama is talking about reining in Washington spending to set an example. That's a Beltway-centric viewpoint. McCain responds by accusing Obama of wanting to raise taxes on small business, more discussion of his tax own tax policy. More D.C. rhetoric. Why not talk about using the bully pulpit to encourage people to be more fiscally responsible. Washington didn't create the mortgage securitization industry, and aside from the suggestion by then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan that homeowners seek out adjustable-rate mortgages, Washington didn't make homeowners take out mortgages they couldn't afford or buy houses that were doomed to lose value. My mortgage isn't in danger of default, and I don't have oppressive credit card debt. I've been fortunate to have a good job but more importantly I've kept my spending under control. I don't buy things I know I can't afford and if I do have to buy a big-ticket item I cut spending elsewhere. It's about personal responsibility. Government regulation and bailouts won't change behavior in any real or lasting way.
8:45 - I wasn't listening to the question, because I was typing the previous entry, but the candidates are talking about energy policy. One thing nobody has mentioned yet is that we could, you know, use less. We can drive less, live closer to work and school and shopping. This is one place where government actually could be helpful - in terms of more strict land use planning policies that encourage density in urban areas and redevelopment of suburban areas into less zoned, more dense developments and the funding of public transportation initiatives as opposed to highways.
8:47 - Tom, if you're so worried about the time limits, cut the microphones. Shit, at the Academy Awards they cut the mike and start the music.
8:50 - "Should health care be treated as a commodity?" What does that even mean? The questions are, how do we cover all Americans with healthcare and rein in healthcare costs? McCain: What's at stake here in terms of healthcare is the fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. No, actually what's at stake is how it is that the United States does not ensure that all its citizens are covered by healthcare. And it's not about choice. Those covered by private healthcare should be able to choose their doctors and their level of coverage. Those consigned to a government healthcare plan should still receive high quality care but will probably have less of a choice.
9:06 - I hope someone is keeping a running "my friends" count. Can we get a dollar donated to the U.S. Treasury every time McCain uses the phrase "my friends?" We'll solve the credit crisis in about an hour.
9:11 - First McCain "Teddy Roosevelt" reference. I think there was a Reagan reference earlier. I love McCain's answer on this Pakistan issue. He accuses Obama of threatening to attack Pakistan, which he believes is a dangerous mistake. First off, Obama isn't threatening to attack Pakistan at all. Second, even if he was his rhetoric wouldn't be any more threatening than Sarah Palin telling Charles Gibson that we might have to go to war with Russia.
9:18 - Did McCain just say Obama was "correct" on some things with respect to Afghanistan? Hey, there's a unicorn in my living room....
9:19 - Russia discussion. McCain gets off his Putin-KGB line. Yawn. Moral support should be provided to Georgia and the Ukraine. Obama: Russian resurgence is the central issue we'll have to deal with in the next presidency. Russia's "resurgence" is transitory and dependent totally on energy prices, which fluctuate with the global economy. If the world enters a global economic downturn, Russia will find its finances sorely crimped. This could actually make it more dangerous, driving popular discontent and possibly a resurgence of communism or even some kind of civil war that puts Russian nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
9:24 - Six minutes to go, two more questions. Good effing luck, Tom.
9:29 - The Iran discussion has taken up five of the remaining six minutes. Nothing new offered.
9:30 - What don't you know, and how will you learn it? That's the last fucking question? Jesus, well that's a fitting question on which to end this debate. Predictable questions, predictable answers, the same rhetoric we've been hearing. I guess that's the town hall format. Predictably, Obama talks about what he does know - the opportunity of America - and uses it for his closing statement. McCain says what he doesn't know is what will happen at home and abroad. "What I don't know is what the unexpected will be." Somehwere Kant is scratching his head. And now McCain moves into his closing, after a transparent attempt at answering the final question.
9:34 - And so endeth the least informative debate I've ever seen. I'm biased, but I think Obama won in terms of completeness of his answers and his insistence on clearing the record when McCain would mischaracterize his positions. McCain kept his answers shorter, but largely because they were meaningless and empty.
Now the pundits and spinmeisters will take over and tell us who won. Me? I've already made up my mind, so this debate wasn't about convincing me or even reinforcing my decision.
On MSNBC, Chris Matthews is telling me what I think ... I mean, what he thinks, and he makes an interesting point: McCain never brought up Bill Ayers and how Obama is a terrorist, which Matthews thinks indicates he's backing away from it and is embarrassed by it. I doubt it. These attacks are all about context, and the proper context to accuse a mainstream political candidate of being a terrorist is not in a nationally televised debate, but on the campaign trail, in sound bites. And that drumbeat will no doubt continue, safely out of the reach of questions from ordinary citizens.
8:02 p.m. - Looks like I missed my opportunity to submit my question online. For the record, here it was: Senator McCain. Last month, as the financial crisis was beginning in earnest, you gave a speech in which you said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Without falling back on the assertion that you meant workers when you said "fundamentals," how would you describe the state of the economy now. I'm referring specifically to the fundamentals of the capital economy, not the workforce economy, since without capital workers do not get paid. How do you view the state of the capital markets and what if anything do you think needs to be done to shore them up? Please be specific and do not ply us with empty campaign rhetoric. The same question to Sen. Obama, minus the reference to the fundamentals being strong.
8:04 - A question on the economy, about bailing out regular folks. Obama says this is a verdict on the last eight years of free market policies. You can't regulate greed, Barack.
8:06 - McCain tells Obama it's good to be at a town hall debate with him. He says this without looking at him.
8:07 - Is McCain going to sit in the questioner's lap? He knows how to get the economy going for working Americans.
Brokaw follow-up - who will you appoint as Treasury Secretary? Warren Buffet. Meg Whitman. Someone who inspires trust and confidence. Actually a good answer. Obama agrees about Warren (another agreement with McCain). Now Obama is talking about middle-class tax cuts. "Senator McCain is right that we have to stabilize housing prices, but...." But Obama didn't answer the question.
8:14 - Obama: The biggest problem is deregulation of the financial system. Again, you can't regulate greed. The derivatives themselves weren't the problem; it's much more complex than that. And additional regulation will require additional resources for the regulatory agencies, which equals more government spending.
8:20 - Obama says he's proposing a net spending cut, in response to a question about why we should trust either candidate with our money given both parties' roles in the current financial crisis. McCain beats the reform gong. He suggests people visit "watchdog organizations" such as the Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union. CAGW is a conservative organization, while the NTU advocates for a flat tax.
8:26 - Obama's spending priorities: energy, healthcare, education. Also have to prioritize income, including tax cuts for the middle class but not continuing the Bush tax cuts.
8:29 - So far I can't say that any of these people are learning much about either candidate that they didn't know. All the familiar themes are being echoed, the same little potshots taken. Both men know how to move around the stage, address their questioners, show empathy. Both men are also going way over the agreed-upon time allotments, which is clearly getting on Tom Brokaw's nerves. But Obama is by and large being much more clear with specifics, as opposed to McCain's "I know how to do it" answers. The only question McCain has answered directly and clearly was who he would appoint as Treasury Secretary.
8:33 - A good follow up question from Tom Brokaw about what as president Obama would do about the culture of easy credit is an opportunity passed. Obama is talking about reining in Washington spending to set an example. That's a Beltway-centric viewpoint. McCain responds by accusing Obama of wanting to raise taxes on small business, more discussion of his tax own tax policy. More D.C. rhetoric. Why not talk about using the bully pulpit to encourage people to be more fiscally responsible. Washington didn't create the mortgage securitization industry, and aside from the suggestion by then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan that homeowners seek out adjustable-rate mortgages, Washington didn't make homeowners take out mortgages they couldn't afford or buy houses that were doomed to lose value. My mortgage isn't in danger of default, and I don't have oppressive credit card debt. I've been fortunate to have a good job but more importantly I've kept my spending under control. I don't buy things I know I can't afford and if I do have to buy a big-ticket item I cut spending elsewhere. It's about personal responsibility. Government regulation and bailouts won't change behavior in any real or lasting way.
8:45 - I wasn't listening to the question, because I was typing the previous entry, but the candidates are talking about energy policy. One thing nobody has mentioned yet is that we could, you know, use less. We can drive less, live closer to work and school and shopping. This is one place where government actually could be helpful - in terms of more strict land use planning policies that encourage density in urban areas and redevelopment of suburban areas into less zoned, more dense developments and the funding of public transportation initiatives as opposed to highways.
8:47 - Tom, if you're so worried about the time limits, cut the microphones. Shit, at the Academy Awards they cut the mike and start the music.
8:50 - "Should health care be treated as a commodity?" What does that even mean? The questions are, how do we cover all Americans with healthcare and rein in healthcare costs? McCain: What's at stake here in terms of healthcare is the fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. No, actually what's at stake is how it is that the United States does not ensure that all its citizens are covered by healthcare. And it's not about choice. Those covered by private healthcare should be able to choose their doctors and their level of coverage. Those consigned to a government healthcare plan should still receive high quality care but will probably have less of a choice.
9:06 - I hope someone is keeping a running "my friends" count. Can we get a dollar donated to the U.S. Treasury every time McCain uses the phrase "my friends?" We'll solve the credit crisis in about an hour.
9:11 - First McCain "Teddy Roosevelt" reference. I think there was a Reagan reference earlier. I love McCain's answer on this Pakistan issue. He accuses Obama of threatening to attack Pakistan, which he believes is a dangerous mistake. First off, Obama isn't threatening to attack Pakistan at all. Second, even if he was his rhetoric wouldn't be any more threatening than Sarah Palin telling Charles Gibson that we might have to go to war with Russia.
9:18 - Did McCain just say Obama was "correct" on some things with respect to Afghanistan? Hey, there's a unicorn in my living room....
9:19 - Russia discussion. McCain gets off his Putin-KGB line. Yawn. Moral support should be provided to Georgia and the Ukraine. Obama: Russian resurgence is the central issue we'll have to deal with in the next presidency. Russia's "resurgence" is transitory and dependent totally on energy prices, which fluctuate with the global economy. If the world enters a global economic downturn, Russia will find its finances sorely crimped. This could actually make it more dangerous, driving popular discontent and possibly a resurgence of communism or even some kind of civil war that puts Russian nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
9:24 - Six minutes to go, two more questions. Good effing luck, Tom.
9:29 - The Iran discussion has taken up five of the remaining six minutes. Nothing new offered.
9:30 - What don't you know, and how will you learn it? That's the last fucking question? Jesus, well that's a fitting question on which to end this debate. Predictable questions, predictable answers, the same rhetoric we've been hearing. I guess that's the town hall format. Predictably, Obama talks about what he does know - the opportunity of America - and uses it for his closing statement. McCain says what he doesn't know is what will happen at home and abroad. "What I don't know is what the unexpected will be." Somehwere Kant is scratching his head. And now McCain moves into his closing, after a transparent attempt at answering the final question.
9:34 - And so endeth the least informative debate I've ever seen. I'm biased, but I think Obama won in terms of completeness of his answers and his insistence on clearing the record when McCain would mischaracterize his positions. McCain kept his answers shorter, but largely because they were meaningless and empty.
Now the pundits and spinmeisters will take over and tell us who won. Me? I've already made up my mind, so this debate wasn't about convincing me or even reinforcing my decision.
On MSNBC, Chris Matthews is telling me what I think ... I mean, what he thinks, and he makes an interesting point: McCain never brought up Bill Ayers and how Obama is a terrorist, which Matthews thinks indicates he's backing away from it and is embarrassed by it. I doubt it. These attacks are all about context, and the proper context to accuse a mainstream political candidate of being a terrorist is not in a nationally televised debate, but on the campaign trail, in sound bites. And that drumbeat will no doubt continue, safely out of the reach of questions from ordinary citizens.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Weapon of Mass Folksiness
I’m getting that uneasy feeling that in the person of Sarah Palin, we are seeing the folksy hijacking of the presidential election by the same gang of political terrorists who managed to install the illiterate George Bush as the leader of the free world and destroy the American Dream.
The Palin Phenomenon shows no sign of letting up, now nearly a week after she burst on the scene with a rollicking speech at the Republican National Convention. The main characteristic of this self-proclaimed hockey mom’s meteoric rise in popularity among hard core Republicans and even independents seems to be her ability to deflect any and all criticism back onto her critics. She’s not just the Teflon candidate, she’s rubberized, and if you sling something at her you’d better be prepared for it to come right back at you. Take the truth, for example.
In Palin’s standard stump speech, she claims she “told Congress ‘thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.’” Only problem is she supported funding for the bridge, and a host of other earmarks for Alaska. Her opposition to the bridge started about the same time Congress removed it as a possible project. They still sent the money to Alaska, though, and Palin spent it.
She also claims, along with McCain, to be anti-lobbyist. But her campaign (can John McCain really claim it at this point?) employs dozens of lobbyists, and as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin employed the town’s very first lobbyist to help secure funding for local projects. And she claims she had no role in firing an Alaska state trooper who was also her brother-in-law (and apparently a wife beater), but an investigation into that is ongoing.
But because the Obama Kool Aid-drunk left immediately lashed out at Palin on blogs and elsewhere shortly after McCain selected her, claiming her pregnant teen daughter showed Palin’s hypocrisy in advocating abstinence-only sex education, mocking her daughter’s decision to have a baby at 17 and marry the father, criticizing Palin’s decision to seek the vice presidency despite recently giving birth to a special needs child (and some even suggested it wasn’t her child but her daughter’s) and insinuating she was a book-banner, among dozens of other questionable assertions and critiques, the left ended up fueling a new McCain campaign strategy: link Obama and the liberal media.
It was only a matter of time before the media’s deification of Barack Obama backfired. For months we’ve had Obama shoved down our throats. His campaign rallies were like rock concerts—teens screamed, women swooned, men wept … and it was all shown on nightly on the news and slapped on the front pages of daily newspapers. It was as if Obama was a steamroller on a mission of change.
But folks don’t like to feel they’re being steamrolled, especially by the media. And so when McCain chose this unknown Alaska governor and former small-town mayor, who also happens to be an evangelical Christian, to be his running mate, well, as they say, it was On.
And so here we are, less than a week after the RNC and fewer than 60 days until the election, and Obama and Palin … er, excuse me, Obama and McCain … are virtually tied in the polls. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin continues to claim she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, was uninvolved in the firing of her brother-in-law. She also claims she fired the Governor’s chef when in fact news reports indicate the chef was reassigned.
So far, Palin’s only exposure has been through a carefully choreographed rollout by the Republican Party. She’s taken no media questions. That will change on Wednesday when Palin is interviewed by ABC News’s Charlie Gibson. Liberals waiting eagerly for Palin to be “exposed” as a northern rube in her first TV interview are, I fear, going to be sorely disappointed. You think Charlie Gibson … “Good Morning, America” Charlie Gibson is going to fluster Palin after she’s had a week to prepare? You think they put her on the ticket knowing she’d get knocked off message so easily? No way. I can see the exchange now….
Gibson: “Governor Palin, can you respond to those who say you supported the so-called bridge to nowhere before you opposed it?”
Palin: “Charlie, you know the liberal media has said a lot of things about me since I was fortunate enough to be asked to run with Senator McCain. I’ve always opposed the bridge. When my grandmother came to America on the Mayflower to seek the American dream, she told me never compromise what you believe in. I think those are small-town values, and they are my values.”
Gibson: “Well, Governor, of course you know it’s impossible for your grandmother to have come over on the mayflower, as that occurred nearly 400 years ago. And there was no ‘America’ then, of which to dream.”
Palin: “Charlie, you know I really can’t believe you and Senator Obama would criticize the American Dream in this way. I mean, I know that you’re both Muslim, but….”
Gibson: “Governor Palin, what are you talking about?”
Palin: “I’m talking about the American Dream, Charlie. I’m going to Washington to fight for that dream on behalf of all Americans.”
Gibson: “Governor, I’m afraid we’re out of time. Thank you so much for not stomping on my balls and unleashing your Republican Feministas on me and my network. God bless you and all your folksiness.”
That’s it, isn’t it? Sarah Palin comes across as folksy, and therefore relates to everyday Americans.
Well, folks, I don’t want a folksy president, or even a folksy vice president. I want my president and vice president to be the smartest people in the room. I want to feel stupid next to them. I want my president and vice president to be the fucking president and vice president, not my goddam drinking buddies.
Obama’s not perfect. But to me he’s a lot less imperfect than McCain and the Obama-Biden ticket has more gravitas to it than McCain-Palin.
Do both sides fudge the truth sometimes? Yes. But Palin and McCain are outright lying right now about their record of “reform.” It’s outside the bounds of what’s acceptable, even politically. This isn’t just stretch a few facts and let the people sort it out. These bastards are speaking plain untruths about important shit and then attacking anyone who calls them on it. It’s absurd!
What’s more absurd, though, and frankly more worrying, is that it seems to be working. A certain segment of the population is eating this stuff up. I guess if nothing else, this election will answer an important question: how stupid are we, really? The answer, I’m afraid, is too close to call right now.
The Indignant Citizen
The Palin Phenomenon shows no sign of letting up, now nearly a week after she burst on the scene with a rollicking speech at the Republican National Convention. The main characteristic of this self-proclaimed hockey mom’s meteoric rise in popularity among hard core Republicans and even independents seems to be her ability to deflect any and all criticism back onto her critics. She’s not just the Teflon candidate, she’s rubberized, and if you sling something at her you’d better be prepared for it to come right back at you. Take the truth, for example.
In Palin’s standard stump speech, she claims she “told Congress ‘thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.’” Only problem is she supported funding for the bridge, and a host of other earmarks for Alaska. Her opposition to the bridge started about the same time Congress removed it as a possible project. They still sent the money to Alaska, though, and Palin spent it.
She also claims, along with McCain, to be anti-lobbyist. But her campaign (can John McCain really claim it at this point?) employs dozens of lobbyists, and as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin employed the town’s very first lobbyist to help secure funding for local projects. And she claims she had no role in firing an Alaska state trooper who was also her brother-in-law (and apparently a wife beater), but an investigation into that is ongoing.
But because the Obama Kool Aid-drunk left immediately lashed out at Palin on blogs and elsewhere shortly after McCain selected her, claiming her pregnant teen daughter showed Palin’s hypocrisy in advocating abstinence-only sex education, mocking her daughter’s decision to have a baby at 17 and marry the father, criticizing Palin’s decision to seek the vice presidency despite recently giving birth to a special needs child (and some even suggested it wasn’t her child but her daughter’s) and insinuating she was a book-banner, among dozens of other questionable assertions and critiques, the left ended up fueling a new McCain campaign strategy: link Obama and the liberal media.
It was only a matter of time before the media’s deification of Barack Obama backfired. For months we’ve had Obama shoved down our throats. His campaign rallies were like rock concerts—teens screamed, women swooned, men wept … and it was all shown on nightly on the news and slapped on the front pages of daily newspapers. It was as if Obama was a steamroller on a mission of change.
But folks don’t like to feel they’re being steamrolled, especially by the media. And so when McCain chose this unknown Alaska governor and former small-town mayor, who also happens to be an evangelical Christian, to be his running mate, well, as they say, it was On.
And so here we are, less than a week after the RNC and fewer than 60 days until the election, and Obama and Palin … er, excuse me, Obama and McCain … are virtually tied in the polls. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin continues to claim she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, was uninvolved in the firing of her brother-in-law. She also claims she fired the Governor’s chef when in fact news reports indicate the chef was reassigned.
So far, Palin’s only exposure has been through a carefully choreographed rollout by the Republican Party. She’s taken no media questions. That will change on Wednesday when Palin is interviewed by ABC News’s Charlie Gibson. Liberals waiting eagerly for Palin to be “exposed” as a northern rube in her first TV interview are, I fear, going to be sorely disappointed. You think Charlie Gibson … “Good Morning, America” Charlie Gibson is going to fluster Palin after she’s had a week to prepare? You think they put her on the ticket knowing she’d get knocked off message so easily? No way. I can see the exchange now….
Gibson: “Governor Palin, can you respond to those who say you supported the so-called bridge to nowhere before you opposed it?”
Palin: “Charlie, you know the liberal media has said a lot of things about me since I was fortunate enough to be asked to run with Senator McCain. I’ve always opposed the bridge. When my grandmother came to America on the Mayflower to seek the American dream, she told me never compromise what you believe in. I think those are small-town values, and they are my values.”
Gibson: “Well, Governor, of course you know it’s impossible for your grandmother to have come over on the mayflower, as that occurred nearly 400 years ago. And there was no ‘America’ then, of which to dream.”
Palin: “Charlie, you know I really can’t believe you and Senator Obama would criticize the American Dream in this way. I mean, I know that you’re both Muslim, but….”
Gibson: “Governor Palin, what are you talking about?”
Palin: “I’m talking about the American Dream, Charlie. I’m going to Washington to fight for that dream on behalf of all Americans.”
Gibson: “Governor, I’m afraid we’re out of time. Thank you so much for not stomping on my balls and unleashing your Republican Feministas on me and my network. God bless you and all your folksiness.”
That’s it, isn’t it? Sarah Palin comes across as folksy, and therefore relates to everyday Americans.
Well, folks, I don’t want a folksy president, or even a folksy vice president. I want my president and vice president to be the smartest people in the room. I want to feel stupid next to them. I want my president and vice president to be the fucking president and vice president, not my goddam drinking buddies.
Obama’s not perfect. But to me he’s a lot less imperfect than McCain and the Obama-Biden ticket has more gravitas to it than McCain-Palin.
Do both sides fudge the truth sometimes? Yes. But Palin and McCain are outright lying right now about their record of “reform.” It’s outside the bounds of what’s acceptable, even politically. This isn’t just stretch a few facts and let the people sort it out. These bastards are speaking plain untruths about important shit and then attacking anyone who calls them on it. It’s absurd!
What’s more absurd, though, and frankly more worrying, is that it seems to be working. A certain segment of the population is eating this stuff up. I guess if nothing else, this election will answer an important question: how stupid are we, really? The answer, I’m afraid, is too close to call right now.
The Indignant Citizen
Friday, August 29, 2008
A Payne in the….
Turns out I am not the only one who noticed WGN-TV anchor Allison Payne’s disturbing behavior (for a journalist, anyway) this week at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. On Monday I mentioned that Payne gave Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin a hug when he landed at the Denver airport on Sunday.
Today, Sun-Times media columnist Roger Feder noted the surprise among other Chicago reporters covering the convention when they saw Payne “cheering and applauding for speakers Wednesday night while she was seated with the Illinois delegation at the Pepsi Center.” (Second item, "Anchor's cheering section.")
This is the kind of shit the Republicans will dig up and gleefully use during this election. Few things could better illustrate conservatives’ point that the media is ga-ga for Obama. No doubt you’ll be voting for Obama in November, Allison, but maybe you should stop to consider how many potential Obama voters you’re driving away by abandoning your journalistic integrity alongside the road. Please, for all of us, stop yourself.
Today, Sun-Times media columnist Roger Feder noted the surprise among other Chicago reporters covering the convention when they saw Payne “cheering and applauding for speakers Wednesday night while she was seated with the Illinois delegation at the Pepsi Center.” (Second item, "Anchor's cheering section.")
This is the kind of shit the Republicans will dig up and gleefully use during this election. Few things could better illustrate conservatives’ point that the media is ga-ga for Obama. No doubt you’ll be voting for Obama in November, Allison, but maybe you should stop to consider how many potential Obama voters you’re driving away by abandoning your journalistic integrity alongside the road. Please, for all of us, stop yourself.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Crazy Karl
As part of my Democratic National Convention watching, I will sometimes tune over to Fox “News” after important speeches. I know that MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will be slobbering all over themselves praising whatever speaker has just finished. I know this. I want to hear what conservatives think, how this convention is playing on the right, or if you prefer, how the right is playing this convention.
So I turn over to Fox “News” and lo and behold there’s Karl Rove, hooked up to a microphone and spewing his bilious views into my cable box and onto my set. And I thought to myself, “Rove, you sick pervert. You and your band of stupid religious zealots and flag sucking fear mongers hijacked the American Dream. You beat honest people over the head with the cudgel of white-knuckled greed. You suffocated reason and enlightenment in the embrace of symbology. You substituted ideology for history. You replaced culture with cultishness. You don’t belong in the broadcast booth you smug bastard; you belong in jail. And we … we let you get away with it. Twice. We deserve what we got. But not any more. Fuck you, Karl Rove.”
So I turn over to Fox “News” and lo and behold there’s Karl Rove, hooked up to a microphone and spewing his bilious views into my cable box and onto my set. And I thought to myself, “Rove, you sick pervert. You and your band of stupid religious zealots and flag sucking fear mongers hijacked the American Dream. You beat honest people over the head with the cudgel of white-knuckled greed. You suffocated reason and enlightenment in the embrace of symbology. You substituted ideology for history. You replaced culture with cultishness. You don’t belong in the broadcast booth you smug bastard; you belong in jail. And we … we let you get away with it. Twice. We deserve what we got. But not any more. Fuck you, Karl Rove.”
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Stick a Fork in It, Part 2
Here’s a scary glimpse into a bleak future for newspapers: Crain’s Chicago Business, citing Editor & Publisher, is floating this possible redesign for the Chicago Tribune. I would have posted the E&P story, but the site wasn’t opening this afternoon.
Note the exaggerated “Trib” in the flag at the top of the page, playing off the paper’s nickname in a hopeless grasp at hipness; the extensive use of oversize images, text and graphics aimed at the short-attention-span crowd; and the absolute dearth of actual copy, a clear nod to the fact that TribCo believes there’s money to be made catering to the illiterate.
All you need to know about TribCo’s approach to journalism can be found in Chief Operating Officer Randy Michael’s order, as quoted by Crain’s, to cut editorial output and staff at the same time it’s considering these comic book-inspired redesigns. It’s all about saving money and making things look cool, look more like the vapid RedEye free tabloid (above). The flossers in charge over at the Tower think this is the future of journalism: flashy graphics, celebrity-ized “news bits” and a sense of tragic hipness. “Content” replaces “stories” as the stuff that fills the (shrinking amount of) space between the ads. The theory seems to be readers don’t necessarily care what they’re reading or where it came from, so long as it looks nice.
And maybe TribCo is right. Maybe they’re just giving the people what the people want. If so, this next decade or so is going to be pretty miserable. It might be anyway, with financial Armageddon hanging over us and common sense on holiday at seemingly every level of society. But without an informed Fourth Estate to provide context, check the power brokers and shine light into the dark cracks of apathy we will be left prone in the path of the spin machine. That’s not the way I want to go, but if the best I can do to inform myself at the local level is pick up some comic book version of what a newspaper used to be, or watch the local “Entertainment Tonight” masquerading as the local newscasts, how do I fight my fate? How does anyone?
Note the exaggerated “Trib” in the flag at the top of the page, playing off the paper’s nickname in a hopeless grasp at hipness; the extensive use of oversize images, text and graphics aimed at the short-attention-span crowd; and the absolute dearth of actual copy, a clear nod to the fact that TribCo believes there’s money to be made catering to the illiterate.
All you need to know about TribCo’s approach to journalism can be found in Chief Operating Officer Randy Michael’s order, as quoted by Crain’s, to cut editorial output and staff at the same time it’s considering these comic book-inspired redesigns. It’s all about saving money and making things look cool, look more like the vapid RedEye free tabloid (above). The flossers in charge over at the Tower think this is the future of journalism: flashy graphics, celebrity-ized “news bits” and a sense of tragic hipness. “Content” replaces “stories” as the stuff that fills the (shrinking amount of) space between the ads. The theory seems to be readers don’t necessarily care what they’re reading or where it came from, so long as it looks nice.And maybe TribCo is right. Maybe they’re just giving the people what the people want. If so, this next decade or so is going to be pretty miserable. It might be anyway, with financial Armageddon hanging over us and common sense on holiday at seemingly every level of society. But without an informed Fourth Estate to provide context, check the power brokers and shine light into the dark cracks of apathy we will be left prone in the path of the spin machine. That’s not the way I want to go, but if the best I can do to inform myself at the local level is pick up some comic book version of what a newspaper used to be, or watch the local “Entertainment Tonight” masquerading as the local newscasts, how do I fight my fate? How does anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
