Op-Ed
AUSTIN, Texas -- Good news! If there is a distinct possibility a Bush nominee is a vile-tempered, lying, ineffective bully, the U.S. Senate is willing to hold off on the vote for two weeks.
John Bolton was an amazingly bad choice for ambassador to the United Nations from the beginning. He has a long record of expressing contempt for and distrust of the United Nations. You may or may not consider that a reasonable position, but it is highly inadvisable in a diplomat. In addition, he was a notable failure as under secretary of state for arms control and international security.
John Bolton was an amazingly bad choice for ambassador to the United Nations from the beginning. He has a long record of expressing contempt for and distrust of the United Nations. You may or may not consider that a reasonable position, but it is highly inadvisable in a diplomat. In addition, he was a notable failure as under secretary of state for arms control and international security.
Harold Meyerson has an interesting article in the Spring 2005 Dissent Magazine called "Beyond The Consensus: Democrats Agree on How to Play Defense, but What Are They Fighting For?" (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/)
Meyerson encourages Democrats to "go to war against Democratic Wall Street elites," to win back the white working class through progressive economic policies. I completely agree, but want to quibble with how Meyerson proposes we do this.
Meyerson begins by claiming that Democrats are all agreed that they presented a strong unified front in last year's elections, that "minorities are not complaining that the party's voter mobilization efforts were insufficient," that "Kerry was surely the strongest candidate in the Democratic field last year."
Already, before he's begun his argument, Meyerson has lost a lot of activists. He goes on, quickly, before presenting data and arguments about economics, to prescribe positions on abortion, religion, and national security, without justifying them in any way.
Meyerson encourages Democrats to "go to war against Democratic Wall Street elites," to win back the white working class through progressive economic policies. I completely agree, but want to quibble with how Meyerson proposes we do this.
Meyerson begins by claiming that Democrats are all agreed that they presented a strong unified front in last year's elections, that "minorities are not complaining that the party's voter mobilization efforts were insufficient," that "Kerry was surely the strongest candidate in the Democratic field last year."
Already, before he's begun his argument, Meyerson has lost a lot of activists. He goes on, quickly, before presenting data and arguments about economics, to prescribe positions on abortion, religion, and national security, without justifying them in any way.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Spring fever is taking a weird form this year. Politicians say nice things for political reasons and then revert with a vengeance -- a sort of political Tourette syndrome, they can't help what they say.
Tom DeLay, of all people, recently issued a fatwa on the need for good manners, a concept so bizarre there is no metaphor for it. It is itself a metaphor: "... as weird as the time Tom DeLay gave us all a lecture on manners."
In his new role as the Emily Post of politics, DeLay informed us, "It is unfortunate in our electoral system, exacerbated by our adversarial media culture, that political discourse has to get so overheated, that it's not just arguments, but motives are questioned." Did someone question his motive in taking an all-expenses-paid vacation from a lobbyist?
This would be the same Tom DeLay who said, "Screw the Senate," when he learned Bob Dole had cut a deal with Clinton to end the government shutdown caused by Newt Gingrich.
"We're in charge. We don't have to negotiate with the Senate." Same as above.
Tom DeLay, of all people, recently issued a fatwa on the need for good manners, a concept so bizarre there is no metaphor for it. It is itself a metaphor: "... as weird as the time Tom DeLay gave us all a lecture on manners."
In his new role as the Emily Post of politics, DeLay informed us, "It is unfortunate in our electoral system, exacerbated by our adversarial media culture, that political discourse has to get so overheated, that it's not just arguments, but motives are questioned." Did someone question his motive in taking an all-expenses-paid vacation from a lobbyist?
This would be the same Tom DeLay who said, "Screw the Senate," when he learned Bob Dole had cut a deal with Clinton to end the government shutdown caused by Newt Gingrich.
"We're in charge. We don't have to negotiate with the Senate." Same as above.
The recent decision by General Motors to pull its advertising from
the Los Angeles Times has not gone over very well.
“Blame the press,” Daily Variety scoffed in mid-April, after several days of publicity about the automaker’s move. “That’s the latest coping mechanism for General Motors, whose slumping share price and falling profits have generated a wave of negative media coverage. ... GM isn’t the first Fortune 500 company to retaliate against a newspaper’s editorial coverage by taking a punch at its ad division. But most companies understand the tactic just doesn’t work; it only generates more bad coverage.”
In the Motor City, the Detroit News business writer Daniel Howes told readers that the monetary slap at the L.A. Times exposes “GM’s thinning corporate skin.” Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam had this to say: “On the one hand, the decision, which may affect up to $20 million in ad spending, sends a powerful message to the Times. On the other hand, it sends a powerful message to the country about the idiots who are running GM.”
“Blame the press,” Daily Variety scoffed in mid-April, after several days of publicity about the automaker’s move. “That’s the latest coping mechanism for General Motors, whose slumping share price and falling profits have generated a wave of negative media coverage. ... GM isn’t the first Fortune 500 company to retaliate against a newspaper’s editorial coverage by taking a punch at its ad division. But most companies understand the tactic just doesn’t work; it only generates more bad coverage.”
In the Motor City, the Detroit News business writer Daniel Howes told readers that the monetary slap at the L.A. Times exposes “GM’s thinning corporate skin.” Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam had this to say: “On the one hand, the decision, which may affect up to $20 million in ad spending, sends a powerful message to the Times. On the other hand, it sends a powerful message to the country about the idiots who are running GM.”
President Bush just told reporters that he has no intention of setting
any timetable for withdrawal. "Our troops will come home when Iraq is
capable of defending herself," he said. Powerful pundits keep telling us
that a swift pullout of U.S. troops would be irresponsible. And plenty of
people have bought into that idea -- including quite a few progressives.
Such acceptance is part of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness
of militarism."
Sometimes, an unspoken assumption among progressive activists is that the occupation of Iraq must be tolerated for tactical reasons -- while other issues, notably domestic ones, are more winnable on Capitol Hill. But this acceptance means going along with many of the devastating effects of a militarized society: from ravaged budgets for social programs to more authoritarian attitudes and violence in communities across the country.
Sometimes, an unspoken assumption among progressive activists is that the occupation of Iraq must be tolerated for tactical reasons -- while other issues, notably domestic ones, are more winnable on Capitol Hill. But this acceptance means going along with many of the devastating effects of a militarized society: from ravaged budgets for social programs to more authoritarian attitudes and violence in communities across the country.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Happy tax day, fellow citizens!
My favorite authority on taxes is David Cay Johnston of The New York Times, who won a Pulitzer for reporting on the terminally unsexy topic of taxes. His book "Perfectly Legal -- The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super-Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else" is the single best work on public policy of recent years, I think.
Johnston reports: "Through explicit policies, as well as tax laws never reported in the news, Congress now literally takes money from those making $30,000 to $500,000 per year and funnels it in subtle ways to the super-rich -- the top one-one hundredth of one percent of Americans.
"People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more."
My favorite authority on taxes is David Cay Johnston of The New York Times, who won a Pulitzer for reporting on the terminally unsexy topic of taxes. His book "Perfectly Legal -- The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super-Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else" is the single best work on public policy of recent years, I think.
Johnston reports: "Through explicit policies, as well as tax laws never reported in the news, Congress now literally takes money from those making $30,000 to $500,000 per year and funnels it in subtle ways to the super-rich -- the top one-one hundredth of one percent of Americans.
"People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more."
AUSTIN, Texas -- Freshly returned from a week of intellectual sparring at the Conference on World Affairs, the annual gabfest in Boulder, Colo. (the late jazz critic Leonard Feather called it "the leisure of the theory class"), I find making connections between headlines mere child's play.
After a week of contemplating Persian poetry, the possible aphrodisiac effect of black licorice, American foreign policy, what we do in the name of God (an actual panel title), war and medicine, I scarcely blink, much less boggle, at such simple topics as tax policy, international finance, terrorism and offshore money laundering.
After a week of contemplating Persian poetry, the possible aphrodisiac effect of black licorice, American foreign policy, what we do in the name of God (an actual panel title), war and medicine, I scarcely blink, much less boggle, at such simple topics as tax policy, international finance, terrorism and offshore money laundering.
I was glad to open the New York Times last Monday and see the headline:
“In Steinbeck’s Birthplace, a Fight to Keep the Libraries Open.” After
visiting Salinas, Calif., over the weekend, I was eager to find out whether
the disturbing and uplifting events there would gain any significant
national coverage.
It was a close call. Other than the medium-length Times article, accompanied by a photo of an 8-year-old girl standing next to an endangered library, the media coverage was sparse. And the Times piece -- while doing a good job of focusing on the danger that all three public libraries in Salinas might close by midyear -- bypassed the connections that many participants in a 24-hour “read-in” had made between lavish spending on war overseas and a funding crisis for libraries at home.
It was a close call. Other than the medium-length Times article, accompanied by a photo of an 8-year-old girl standing next to an endangered library, the media coverage was sparse. And the Times piece -- while doing a good job of focusing on the danger that all three public libraries in Salinas might close by midyear -- bypassed the connections that many participants in a 24-hour “read-in” had made between lavish spending on war overseas and a funding crisis for libraries at home.
Even if you've heard more than enough about Terry Schiavo, it seems useful
to consider why Bush's political grandstanding backfired. Over seventy
percent of Americans, including solid majorities of self-described
evangelicals, opposed the intervention of the White House and Congress.
Those surveyed mistrusted the Bush administration's blatant disregard for
local control, the rule of law, and the right to be protected from a
capricious federal government.
Their responses also speak to a broader shift in how we deal with difficult end-of-life issues. For twenty years, gradually increasing majorities have agreed that for all our technological inventiveness, what some people need most is the right to die in peace.
You'd think that this belief--that the most difficult intimate decisions must be our own--would also raise support for maintaining the right to abortion. But it hasn't. In the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, support for keeping abortion legal, and without onerous restrictions, has stayed even, at most, and new onerous restrictions keep getting imposed.
Their responses also speak to a broader shift in how we deal with difficult end-of-life issues. For twenty years, gradually increasing majorities have agreed that for all our technological inventiveness, what some people need most is the right to die in peace.
You'd think that this belief--that the most difficult intimate decisions must be our own--would also raise support for maintaining the right to abortion. But it hasn't. In the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, support for keeping abortion legal, and without onerous restrictions, has stayed even, at most, and new onerous restrictions keep getting imposed.
AUSTIN -- Why in the name of sanity, you may ask, should an aging, overweight spinster like myself agree to go bungee jumping with her nephew? My fellow aunts will understand immediately, however, when I explain that the nephew in question is 15, wears his baseball hat backward and has attitude.
As a veteran aunt (helped raise one set of two, am working on the next set of three), I have been enjoying my recent stint as non-parent in residence. Being an aunt is a great gig. You get to hand the kids back at the end of a week or a month, so discipline is not your problem. Veteran aunts never insist on vegetables or museums. Aunts without children of their own have an extra edge, since we're not really, exactly grown-ups. As permanent non-parents, we can still side with kids. We can Mame it up all we want. (All this may hold true for uncles as well. I'm just not well-informed on that angle.)
As a veteran aunt (helped raise one set of two, am working on the next set of three), I have been enjoying my recent stint as non-parent in residence. Being an aunt is a great gig. You get to hand the kids back at the end of a week or a month, so discipline is not your problem. Veteran aunts never insist on vegetables or museums. Aunts without children of their own have an extra edge, since we're not really, exactly grown-ups. As permanent non-parents, we can still side with kids. We can Mame it up all we want. (All this may hold true for uncles as well. I'm just not well-informed on that angle.)