Anyone living in New York City should be quite aware of the power of money in politics. After all, here we are living under a third Bloomberg mayoral term, bought and paid for much as the first two were. Despite the fact that one could say this third term is illegal, it appeared that no one had the money to mount a challenge to Mayor Bloomberg. Whoever said that justice is free?
You see, it's not about someone paying Bloomberg to vote for a particular company or law; it is Bloomberg himself having access to enough money to make sure no one could wrest the office away from him. And then once in office, he continues his own agenda, which so far has featured overbuilding the island of Manhattan to such an extend we can only hope it doesn't sink into the sea. Failing that, however, he is still lining his pockets with all these deals he brokers.
When it comes to using money in politics, I don't think companies seek so much to influence a vote on a particular bill (at least usually not, except perhaps in cases such as healthcare reform), as to support a candidate whose viewpoint matches their own. That's why we see even moderate Republicans such as Crist in Florida being challenged by more conservative organizations supporting a challenger to him. Having the money to buy up ad time against the competition as well as flood the market with ads pushing a particular candidate usually results in a great many people being brainwashed about a candidate much as they are about paper towels or soap detergent. These persuaders are no longer so hidden.
The Supreme Court even calling this case a First Amendment case is disturbing, as I think that is really stinking thinking. Anyone is free to say whatever they want about anyone, if it is not defamation. And we don't need a ruling from the Supreme Court for any company to voice its opinion. But once more, the point here was not really about SPEECH but MONEY. It's not what a company says, but the money it has available to spend on producing infomercials, films, expensive, sophisticated ads, etc. to sway the public in its vote. I don't believe this is a free speech issue at all.
Also interesting is that this conservative court is the most activist court we've seen in quite a while as it happily overturns precedents in its mission to bring its conservative agenda to life. And the above decision, wrongly presented as a First Amendment issue overturned a precedent of almost 100 years!
There is no question but that Roberts seems on a hellbent mission to take the country in the direction of his conservative vision, and he is supported by his four conservative cohorts. The opportunity may present itself, or if it doesn't, they can create the opportunity, to roll time back, way back on other issues. Do not be surprised at what other decisions may be made that roll back the country to earlier less egalitarian times. Have we already forgotten the Court's take on Lily Ledbetter?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Bernanke Deserves Our Thanks and Another Term
Ben Bernanke at the Fed has done a superb job for which he has not been given adequate recognition, and that is a great injustice and it may be conseuquently mean a great loss for the country if he is not reconfirmed for another term.
His predecessor, the arrogant Greenspan, is still being praised despite his public apology for all his errors, noting that he was not paying enough attention. Yes, indeed. Even Greenspan himself now realizes that he did not do such a wonderful job.
Bernanke, on the other hand, performing as well as could be possible for the situation he faced in his tenure is now being castigated for events over which he did not preside and for the disastrous results for which he did not set things in motion.
Give him credit, however, for the fact that he has been a positive force in office. It is not known whether we would have done as well with someone else. Let's show our appreciation for his hard work. Better yet, let him continue. He is very much needed.
What clever politics to attempt to use such a convenient public figure as the vessel in which we dump all our anger and frustration over the incomplete recovery of the economy one year into the new administration. How ingenuous to dismantle someone with superior qualifications from the fine work he’s been doing in getting the economy heading in the right direction.
It is truly distressing to see someone of Bernanke’s ilk treated so shabbily. He’s not had an easy time of it, but he’s shown himself to be an impressive figure, certainly someone we need at the Fed. Give him confirmation to continue his thoughtful good work. We need Bernanke during these difficult times.
His predecessor, the arrogant Greenspan, is still being praised despite his public apology for all his errors, noting that he was not paying enough attention. Yes, indeed. Even Greenspan himself now realizes that he did not do such a wonderful job.
Bernanke, on the other hand, performing as well as could be possible for the situation he faced in his tenure is now being castigated for events over which he did not preside and for the disastrous results for which he did not set things in motion.
Give him credit, however, for the fact that he has been a positive force in office. It is not known whether we would have done as well with someone else. Let's show our appreciation for his hard work. Better yet, let him continue. He is very much needed.
What clever politics to attempt to use such a convenient public figure as the vessel in which we dump all our anger and frustration over the incomplete recovery of the economy one year into the new administration. How ingenuous to dismantle someone with superior qualifications from the fine work he’s been doing in getting the economy heading in the right direction.
It is truly distressing to see someone of Bernanke’s ilk treated so shabbily. He’s not had an easy time of it, but he’s shown himself to be an impressive figure, certainly someone we need at the Fed. Give him confirmation to continue his thoughtful good work. We need Bernanke during these difficult times.
Scott and Sarah and the Fate pf Healthcare
The newly minted Senator Brown can be seen in some ways as being a male Sarah Palin, albeit more articulate and educated. What makes me think of Sarah when I look at Scott is the strong reminder of how they both trade on good looks, and they both lie. Big time. Brown campaigned all over his state crying out that he was going to stop health care reform in Congress so that the people in Massachusetts would not have to pay for everyone else’s healthcare in the country.
Of course that is quite a whopper, if you’ll excuse the expression. But then again, not only did many in that state believe this nonsense, but please remember: they don’t care about healthcare reform because they already have universal healthcare. It may not be the most serious contender to Sarah's winning "Liar of the Year" in 2009 for her Death Panel speeches, but combined with his Senate seat and its voting privilege Brown may be in the running for 2010.
The point is that the very hypocritical Senator Brown should not be able to crush a bill that would give to the rest of the country what the people of his state not only already have, but obviously appreciate having.
It would be a serious blunder to not pass healthcare reform, even if it is not perfect, and it certainly won’t be. But to attempt to maintain what we have is not only untenable but an invitation to the healthcare industry to continue jacking up the prices on everything as they have been doing on a regular yearly basis.
Business as usual in the healthcare industry translates to a tremendous barrier to getting our economy on its feet any time soon.
Of course that is quite a whopper, if you’ll excuse the expression. But then again, not only did many in that state believe this nonsense, but please remember: they don’t care about healthcare reform because they already have universal healthcare. It may not be the most serious contender to Sarah's winning "Liar of the Year" in 2009 for her Death Panel speeches, but combined with his Senate seat and its voting privilege Brown may be in the running for 2010.
The point is that the very hypocritical Senator Brown should not be able to crush a bill that would give to the rest of the country what the people of his state not only already have, but obviously appreciate having.
It would be a serious blunder to not pass healthcare reform, even if it is not perfect, and it certainly won’t be. But to attempt to maintain what we have is not only untenable but an invitation to the healthcare industry to continue jacking up the prices on everything as they have been doing on a regular yearly basis.
Business as usual in the healthcare industry translates to a tremendous barrier to getting our economy on its feet any time soon.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Obama's First Year
Everywhere you look online, polls are being taken on whether in his first year in office the president has been successful. This in place of the more burdensome task of looking at the hard facts of what has been accomplished. And make no mistake, this president, much as he has been maligned by pundits, press, congressmen on the other side of the aisle and even Saturday Night Live, has been effective. You might consider that the loud roar against him may be in direct response to his unprecedented success. Yes, I will repeat that, unprecedented success!
National Public Radio has reported that a Congressional Quarterly study has discovered President Obama to have done better than even legendary arm-twister Lyndon Johnson in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position. In fact, the study gives him the highest mark of any president since it began tracking more than fifty years ago. And this in a year where the issues Obama tackled included how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.
In addition, the list of his accomplishments during his year in office are impressive, despite the press’s reluctance to list such boring stuff as the fact that he ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending; ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices; instituted enforcement for equal pay for women; began the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; made sure families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB; ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information as well as on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB. He also has the executive branch of government now respecting the Freedom of Information Act; instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible; and has put limits on lobbyist's access to the White House as well as limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration.
The list goes on with such important actions as removing restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research and adding new federal funding for research project as well as science and research labs. The much neglected infrastructure in our country has been given funding dedicated to projects focused on infrastructure rebuilding and, in the process, putting people back to work. The list is incredibly long for one year and that list does go on.
Has he had missteps? Nothing even close to the list of accomplishments. There is no question but that we now have an intelligent, savvy president who is listening and paying attention and, most importantly, getting things done. He has given us back our Constitution and our pride in our country. Another of his important accomplishments has been to garner respect in the world community for our country and leadership, something that would seem a gargantuan task after the Bush years in the wilderness.
Before you take a poll on Obama’s “success” or “failure,” it would perhaps be more seemly to actually look at the record.
National Public Radio has reported that a Congressional Quarterly study has discovered President Obama to have done better than even legendary arm-twister Lyndon Johnson in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position. In fact, the study gives him the highest mark of any president since it began tracking more than fifty years ago. And this in a year where the issues Obama tackled included how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.
In addition, the list of his accomplishments during his year in office are impressive, despite the press’s reluctance to list such boring stuff as the fact that he ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending; ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices; instituted enforcement for equal pay for women; began the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; made sure families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB; ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information as well as on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB. He also has the executive branch of government now respecting the Freedom of Information Act; instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible; and has put limits on lobbyist's access to the White House as well as limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration.
The list goes on with such important actions as removing restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research and adding new federal funding for research project as well as science and research labs. The much neglected infrastructure in our country has been given funding dedicated to projects focused on infrastructure rebuilding and, in the process, putting people back to work. The list is incredibly long for one year and that list does go on.
Has he had missteps? Nothing even close to the list of accomplishments. There is no question but that we now have an intelligent, savvy president who is listening and paying attention and, most importantly, getting things done. He has given us back our Constitution and our pride in our country. Another of his important accomplishments has been to garner respect in the world community for our country and leadership, something that would seem a gargantuan task after the Bush years in the wilderness.
Before you take a poll on Obama’s “success” or “failure,” it would perhaps be more seemly to actually look at the record.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The Washington Post Pas de Deux with Palin
It is a mystery to me why the Washington Post continues to keep publishing articles trumpeting absurdist rhetoric allegedly written by Sarah Palin. There is no doubt that these pieces convey ideas with which she agrees, but one would expect a newspaper to be at least somewhat cautious in allowing a celebrity/ex-politician to use their op ed pages in the pretense that she can actually write a sentence about anything in standard English. I would be more disposed to let it go if she were at least holding office or officially running for something. Then we could all get down to dealing with the content. Perhaps. But having these columns appear recently on such a regular basis quite frankly makes one wonder whether they are employing some new intern on their staff who has mistakenly taken her for a pundit of some sort.
The Partiality of Polling
The tyranny of polling has reached utterly idiotic proportions among news agencies, most particularly CNN and Fox. I don't understand how a poll can be taken on a complex subject, with the inherent danger of asking questions couched in terms that are very likely biased, if not downright incorrect, and then answered by people who are not qualified to understand what they are being asked.
Most people, including many in our Congress, do not have enough of a background in economics to be able to comprehend and discuss issues on the economy and debt intelligently, and yet polls are taken in which people are asked to toss off an opinion on these matters as if one did not need expertise.
Having people offer uninformed nonsense about serious topics trivializes what is imparted as news and misleads viewers. It does not give credence to any network having “the best news team in television,” a sobriquet that must be earned with more serious journalistic work than putting together poll after poll, as if this were made up of facts.
Most people, including many in our Congress, do not have enough of a background in economics to be able to comprehend and discuss issues on the economy and debt intelligently, and yet polls are taken in which people are asked to toss off an opinion on these matters as if one did not need expertise.
Having people offer uninformed nonsense about serious topics trivializes what is imparted as news and misleads viewers. It does not give credence to any network having “the best news team in television,” a sobriquet that must be earned with more serious journalistic work than putting together poll after poll, as if this were made up of facts.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Intolerance of No Choice
In regard to a number of comments sent to me lately, I would like to articulate the following. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I would like to point out a few things about misconceived notions. First, most abortions ARE NOT some form of birth control, although I’ve heard of women who got pregnant because pharmacists would not fill their birth control prescriptions. Another problem. Second, most abortions are performed on married women. Third, a majority of terminations are performed because of actual medical problems, not necessarily putting the mother’s life at risk, but then again that is not our business. But the fact is that for a number of medical reasons, women who are having planned babies are advised to terminate. But my point is that this is all an issue between doctor and patient and no more our concern than any other procedure. I wonder whether there would be a debate if the procedure were one that only men underwent.
I know of many women who have had abortions, and not one is sorry she had the abortion. I know of no one who “wanted” it, but nonetheless each understood why it was the right decision for her. My attitude is not cavalier, but it is based on medical rather than religious belief. It is never a decision taken lightly. But if abortion is not made available to all women, regardless of station in life, there will be worse tragedy.
Choice works both ways. For instance, a woman I knew, pregnant for the first time at 40, was diagnosed with breast cancer. Although not for religious reasons, she refused an abortion. She felt she could deal with the cancer later despite the admonition that cancer is much more aggressive in a pregnant woman. She had a healthy baby but sadly did not live to see his first birthday. But it was her choice. We mourned and if I could go back in time, knowing what the result would be, perhaps I would have said something. But I said nothing because I felt strongly that it had to be her decision.
In a perfect world, there would certainly never be a need for abortion, whatever the reason, but to believe that abortion is another form of birth control is a mistaken concept that is put forward particularly by men who would prefer to misinform and control. Even if every single pregnancy in the world were a planned one, there would, unfortunately still be a need for termination of certain pregnancies, and I don't mean because it would not be a "perfect" baby, but because it could be a tragic outcome, such as grossly compromised child who might or might live a short time, or one who is already dead in utero. I in fact know a woman who was carrying a much wanted baby. The doctor informed her the fetus was no longer alive around the fourth month, but for his own insane reasons told the woman she had to carry to term because "it would be better." For whom, I don't know. But it took an incredible emotional toll on her to carry a dead baby all those months and suffer the oohs and aahs of people who didn't know. How could they be aware of such a cruel thing being perpetrated? And then, as you mentioned, there are the cases of rape, incest, danger to the woman’s life, etc. But why should a woman be under scrutiny and subject to passing a "test" for an abortion as if she were on trial? Once more, it is a medical procedure and as such should be treated like all other medical procedures—as a matter between doctor and patient.
Every woman who has not had to wrestle with this tough decision must feel relieved, but that cannot in any way make you self-righteous or smug. I imagine everyone is acquainted with women who have had an abortion but may not even be aware of it. Be more tolerant. One is entitled to beliefs but not to foist them on others.
I know of many women who have had abortions, and not one is sorry she had the abortion. I know of no one who “wanted” it, but nonetheless each understood why it was the right decision for her. My attitude is not cavalier, but it is based on medical rather than religious belief. It is never a decision taken lightly. But if abortion is not made available to all women, regardless of station in life, there will be worse tragedy.
Choice works both ways. For instance, a woman I knew, pregnant for the first time at 40, was diagnosed with breast cancer. Although not for religious reasons, she refused an abortion. She felt she could deal with the cancer later despite the admonition that cancer is much more aggressive in a pregnant woman. She had a healthy baby but sadly did not live to see his first birthday. But it was her choice. We mourned and if I could go back in time, knowing what the result would be, perhaps I would have said something. But I said nothing because I felt strongly that it had to be her decision.
In a perfect world, there would certainly never be a need for abortion, whatever the reason, but to believe that abortion is another form of birth control is a mistaken concept that is put forward particularly by men who would prefer to misinform and control. Even if every single pregnancy in the world were a planned one, there would, unfortunately still be a need for termination of certain pregnancies, and I don't mean because it would not be a "perfect" baby, but because it could be a tragic outcome, such as grossly compromised child who might or might live a short time, or one who is already dead in utero. I in fact know a woman who was carrying a much wanted baby. The doctor informed her the fetus was no longer alive around the fourth month, but for his own insane reasons told the woman she had to carry to term because "it would be better." For whom, I don't know. But it took an incredible emotional toll on her to carry a dead baby all those months and suffer the oohs and aahs of people who didn't know. How could they be aware of such a cruel thing being perpetrated? And then, as you mentioned, there are the cases of rape, incest, danger to the woman’s life, etc. But why should a woman be under scrutiny and subject to passing a "test" for an abortion as if she were on trial? Once more, it is a medical procedure and as such should be treated like all other medical procedures—as a matter between doctor and patient.
Every woman who has not had to wrestle with this tough decision must feel relieved, but that cannot in any way make you self-righteous or smug. I imagine everyone is acquainted with women who have had an abortion but may not even be aware of it. Be more tolerant. One is entitled to beliefs but not to foist them on others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
