I got an email today from a woman in England whom my husband dated briefly. I call her "The Fair Arlene," not entirely sarcastically. (Actually, she's good fun.) Anyway, she wrote to us this afternoon, superficially to compliment us on our wedding photos, but really to ask for my opinion of some video that alleges our current economic woes are the result of a cabal of international bankers who planned to undermine our economy. (Why a woman from Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, now living in the U.K., is concerned about the machinations of international bankers meddling in the U.S. economy, that I can't say.)
Anyway, I responded to her as follows -- and this is just what I dashed off in a rush, mind you, so no footnotes!
Arlene -- How nice to hear from you. Re: international bankers having it in for the U.S.: I hate to rain on a good conspiracy theory, but I have to suggest that we (Americans) managed to trash our own economy on all our own. I don't doubt we got help, but the whole thing has been the dog's breakfast. Here's my view of how it happened:
The dot-com boom in the mid- to late-90s was truly the rising tide that floated (almost) all boats in this country. That led to an explosion of the American tendency toward self-aggrandizement and arrogance. Truly wealthy people were convinced that they could do everything, buy everything, have everything. Merely moneyed people were convinced they were already really wealthy, or would end up very wealthy in short order. They favored regressive monetary policy that increased the opportunity (risk-free, they thought!) to make money hand-over-fist. Middle class folks also thought it was just a matter of time before they were rich too, so they voted in line with the wealthy. This was known as "aspirational voting."
So, when Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a surplus (not that we weren't still in debt, but we'd been making more money through tax and other revenues than we'd been spending) and a mandate to loosen or get rid of regulation that hampered the free market forces so loved by conservatives. The next thing you know, we have Enron (a company that really figured that their financial shell game was okay because, you know, they were making money), and the housing market that permitted absurd lending practices on the grounds that it was good for poor people to own their own houses, and after all, we're all making money. But then 9/11 happened (now, do you think that Osama bin Laden is in the pay of these shadowy international bankers? That would be hinky!), and Bush led us into not one but two wars in short order. Chasing after oil revenues was part of that, of course -- and don't miss the fact that the oil companies are pretty much the only sector making money hand-over-fist even today! -- plus the arrogance and self-aggrandizement natural to Republicans. (They *say* they're all about fiscal responsibility but it's a lie.) Well, just like Enron, so went the credit business entirely. And I'm not optimistic overall. But I really don't think anyone planned this. I'm pretty sure it happened the way all sorts of bad things happen: Nobody thought it could happen, so they failed to heed conventional wisdom and common sense, and then that it-could-never-happen bad thing happened.
As I say, though, if you prefer the elaborate conspiracy theory, don't let me stop you. There's undoubtedly enough bad news to fuel everyone's pessimism!
Take care -- Magdalen
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Once More Into The Breech
I got a call from Kathie Shelley, who used to be "the" Democratic lawyer in Susquehanna County. She'd received a call from a lawyer in Philadelphia working for the Obama campaign and trying to put together lead attorneys in each of Pennsylvania's counties. This is preparing for the November election, and as Kathie has retired, she wanted to give him my name. Sure, no problem, I said.
So once again I'll be the lawyer on the spot for the Democrats on election day. That's fine; I've done it before. It will be interesting to see if there's more activity on election day here than there was in 2006. It will also be interesting to see if Barack Obama's historical candidacy will resonate in this still-quite-conservative county.
Of course, you would think there would be a Republican lawyer doing the same thing, just for the sake of parity. But you would be wrong, and really quite silly. This is Susquehanna County -- the Republicans don't need to worry that any of their sizable number will be messed about by election day antics. What they don't seem to understand is that among their sizable number are quite a few people who will vote for the Democratic candidate in some races. There are hard Republicans here, and soft ones. It will be interesting to see how the numbers break out when all the votes are counted.
And that's my job: to make sure that all the legitimate votes get counted. It's actually quite an honor.
So once again I'll be the lawyer on the spot for the Democrats on election day. That's fine; I've done it before. It will be interesting to see if there's more activity on election day here than there was in 2006. It will also be interesting to see if Barack Obama's historical candidacy will resonate in this still-quite-conservative county.
Of course, you would think there would be a Republican lawyer doing the same thing, just for the sake of parity. But you would be wrong, and really quite silly. This is Susquehanna County -- the Republicans don't need to worry that any of their sizable number will be messed about by election day antics. What they don't seem to understand is that among their sizable number are quite a few people who will vote for the Democratic candidate in some races. There are hard Republicans here, and soft ones. It will be interesting to see how the numbers break out when all the votes are counted.
And that's my job: to make sure that all the legitimate votes get counted. It's actually quite an honor.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
A Quick Check
I know at least one person checks this blog because that one person reminded me recently that it was STILL SNOWING on my masthead, and even in Susquehanna County, we do get summer. Fair comment. [Changes have been made. -- Ed.]
So while I'm waiting for today's torrential rains to abate long enough for me to take a more summery photo for the masthead, here's a quick check of my thoughts on the current political scene.
1. Who's this woman in Massachusetts who cares enough about one-upsmanship in political signage during the annual Fourth of July parade that she had to write in to the Independent? I mean, if people did what she said they did (or, rather, if they did what she wants people to believe they did -- her command of a coherent narrative style left me a bit confused as to what she was alleging actually happened), then sure -- bad on those Carney supporters. But the whole thing is hinky. Supposedly she's writing out of a sense of patriotism and community nostalgia. But who actually cares enough to write to the paper of a community you've already left? And where was she when Don Sherwood was shtupping some woman in D.C., then (allegedly) hitting her, then (allegedly) paying her off as settlement of a civil action? What I'm trying to say is, Chris Carney isn't responsible for every action -- misguided or not -- of his supporters, but Don Sherwood is responsible for who he [fill in crude verb of choice].
So this woman can claim that she's not partisan, that she's just complaining about how some over-zealous political supporters were behaving badly. She can even say she would have written the exact same letter if it had been Hackett supporters blocking the Carney signs. But until she produces the letter to the editor she wrote two years ago to say that Don Sherwood has besmirched the good name and reputation of his loyal supporters in Montrose when he behaved so egregiously . . . she's got no credibility with me.
2. I'm an Obama supporter.
I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker magazine.
I thought The Cover was funny.
But I can see why others didn't. Whatev.
Here's what does surprise me. Why aren't I allowed to think it's funny? I had people telling me that it WASN'T funny, that it WAS offensive, and that no one {liberal/Obama-supporting/with a conscience/with a pulse} could possibly think it acceptable. Only I am liberal/Obama-supporting/have a conscience/and have a pulse. And I'm also pretty certain it's not me who has a problem here.
For one thing, "they" can't articulate precisely why I should be offended by The Cover. In the space of ten minutes, I heard on two different liberal leaning radio programs (Air America and Here and Now) that The Cover was offensive because it wasn't realistic ("Michelle Obama has never worn her hair like that!") and that The Cover was offensive because it was too realistic ("satire is extreme; this wasn't extreme"). Well, make up your tiny minds!
For another thing, all that outrage seemed awfully convenient. I swear the pundits listen to each other and react accordingly. Would the one person who did think it was funny get ostracized by the others? Is there some sort of punditry punishment for mavericks?
And "their" certainty was so odd, as if they'd established the offensiveness of The Cover by irrefutable Aristotelian logic, Venn diagrams, and reductio ad absurdum arguments straight from their high school debating clubs. I half expected someone to say "Q.E.D." with a flourish of the hand. And isn't that ironic, because I'm pretty sure The Cover was mocking precisely that rush to judgment, that certainty without proof, that -- well, reductio ad absurdum. As I saw it, it was saying, "If everything everyone has said about the Obamas were true -- she's got militant ties, he's a secret Muslim, she's too black for America, he's not black enough, etc., etc. -- here's what you'd get."
Sorry, I still think it's funny. And I really thought Jon Stewart was right on target, pointing out that it's odd how the Obama campaign got upset that The Cover showed him as an Muslim Extremist, because Muslim Extremists are the ones who get upset about cartoons. If you want to watch the video clip, it's here.
3. I was asked, recently, why I thought Obama should be elected and how his election would help quilters. (Hey, I have other facets to my life -- and I post more about quilting, too!) Here's what I replied:
The current administration has dug a pretty horrible hole for us within the global community, and that's affecting us at home more than people realize. The dollar is down against the Euro, the Asian currencies, and so forth -- that, in turn, is making all us poorer in the global economy. Given that we've been lured into complacency about gas guzzling cars and energy inefficient consumption, that means one thing: LESS MONEY FOR BUYING FABRIC. (Sorry for the yelling...) A stronger US economy starts abroad, and if we can pull that off, we can spend more at home.
Obama gets it that we have to start mending fences abroad. More internationalism, less cowboy/military action. Let's impress our neighbors abroad that we're smarter than the 43rd president. Let's encourage investment in the US -- heck, let's export more American-designed fabric! (And American ingenuity, know-how, creativity, and complexity -- we've got a great product once you stop our national leaders from waving guns around.)
Obama also gets it that we all work hard and need a break at home. I think he'll do a much better job of supporting us as busy professionals. Look at his position on the reformed G.I. Bill legislation -- that's support for the folks who've made such monumental sacrifices for our country. Let's get them home, provide them with mental health services and job placement and education, and a sense that we know we've asked far too much of them, so it's our turn to give back. And if Obama -- and not McCain -- thinks that's important for our nation's military, then I think we can guess which candidate will do a better job supporting our nation's quilters. (Not that those are mutually exclusive groups, you understand. I have no doubt there are loads of military quilters.)
Finally, McCain lost his gadfly cred when he backed Bush in Iraq and at home. Obama is bucking a long-standing tradition of politics as a backroom business. He believes this nation can do great things again, and he's made me believe that as well. I think he can pull it off, but even if all he does is restore a sense of urgency and excitement about the presidential election, and governing the nation as a whole, he's done us all a great favor. If we can sleep at night knowing our government is not all a bunch of horses' derrieres, then that means we'll be better rested in the morning. And you know what a well rested quilter means, don't you? A more consistent quarter-inch seam. Say it with me: Yes, we can!
Well, has anyone noticed how Barack Obama is being received abroad? Not too shabby, hunh? When you can impress the prime minister of Iraq, King Abdullah of Jordan, the US troops, and the German public, you're doing something right. So, my answer might have been tongue-in-cheek, but it might also have been prescient. How awesome would it be if we had the guy that everyone thought was cool and impressive? They might even like us a little, again.
So while I'm waiting for today's torrential rains to abate long enough for me to take a more summery photo for the masthead, here's a quick check of my thoughts on the current political scene.
1. Who's this woman in Massachusetts who cares enough about one-upsmanship in political signage during the annual Fourth of July parade that she had to write in to the Independent? I mean, if people did what she said they did (or, rather, if they did what she wants people to believe they did -- her command of a coherent narrative style left me a bit confused as to what she was alleging actually happened), then sure -- bad on those Carney supporters. But the whole thing is hinky. Supposedly she's writing out of a sense of patriotism and community nostalgia. But who actually cares enough to write to the paper of a community you've already left? And where was she when Don Sherwood was shtupping some woman in D.C., then (allegedly) hitting her, then (allegedly) paying her off as settlement of a civil action? What I'm trying to say is, Chris Carney isn't responsible for every action -- misguided or not -- of his supporters, but Don Sherwood is responsible for who he [fill in crude verb of choice].
So this woman can claim that she's not partisan, that she's just complaining about how some over-zealous political supporters were behaving badly. She can even say she would have written the exact same letter if it had been Hackett supporters blocking the Carney signs. But until she produces the letter to the editor she wrote two years ago to say that Don Sherwood has besmirched the good name and reputation of his loyal supporters in Montrose when he behaved so egregiously . . . she's got no credibility with me.
2. I'm an Obama supporter.
I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker magazine.
I thought The Cover was funny.
But I can see why others didn't. Whatev.
Here's what does surprise me. Why aren't I allowed to think it's funny? I had people telling me that it WASN'T funny, that it WAS offensive, and that no one {liberal/Obama-supporting/with a conscience/with a pulse} could possibly think it acceptable. Only I am liberal/Obama-supporting/have a conscience/and have a pulse. And I'm also pretty certain it's not me who has a problem here.
For one thing, "they" can't articulate precisely why I should be offended by The Cover. In the space of ten minutes, I heard on two different liberal leaning radio programs (Air America and Here and Now) that The Cover was offensive because it wasn't realistic ("Michelle Obama has never worn her hair like that!") and that The Cover was offensive because it was too realistic ("satire is extreme; this wasn't extreme"). Well, make up your tiny minds!
For another thing, all that outrage seemed awfully convenient. I swear the pundits listen to each other and react accordingly. Would the one person who did think it was funny get ostracized by the others? Is there some sort of punditry punishment for mavericks?
And "their" certainty was so odd, as if they'd established the offensiveness of The Cover by irrefutable Aristotelian logic, Venn diagrams, and reductio ad absurdum arguments straight from their high school debating clubs. I half expected someone to say "Q.E.D." with a flourish of the hand. And isn't that ironic, because I'm pretty sure The Cover was mocking precisely that rush to judgment, that certainty without proof, that -- well, reductio ad absurdum. As I saw it, it was saying, "If everything everyone has said about the Obamas were true -- she's got militant ties, he's a secret Muslim, she's too black for America, he's not black enough, etc., etc. -- here's what you'd get."
Sorry, I still think it's funny. And I really thought Jon Stewart was right on target, pointing out that it's odd how the Obama campaign got upset that The Cover showed him as an Muslim Extremist, because Muslim Extremists are the ones who get upset about cartoons. If you want to watch the video clip, it's here.
3. I was asked, recently, why I thought Obama should be elected and how his election would help quilters. (Hey, I have other facets to my life -- and I post more about quilting, too!) Here's what I replied:
The current administration has dug a pretty horrible hole for us within the global community, and that's affecting us at home more than people realize. The dollar is down against the Euro, the Asian currencies, and so forth -- that, in turn, is making all us poorer in the global economy. Given that we've been lured into complacency about gas guzzling cars and energy inefficient consumption, that means one thing: LESS MONEY FOR BUYING FABRIC. (Sorry for the yelling...) A stronger US economy starts abroad, and if we can pull that off, we can spend more at home.
Obama gets it that we have to start mending fences abroad. More internationalism, less cowboy/military action. Let's impress our neighbors abroad that we're smarter than the 43rd president. Let's encourage investment in the US -- heck, let's export more American-designed fabric! (And American ingenuity, know-how, creativity, and complexity -- we've got a great product once you stop our national leaders from waving guns around.)
Obama also gets it that we all work hard and need a break at home. I think he'll do a much better job of supporting us as busy professionals. Look at his position on the reformed G.I. Bill legislation -- that's support for the folks who've made such monumental sacrifices for our country. Let's get them home, provide them with mental health services and job placement and education, and a sense that we know we've asked far too much of them, so it's our turn to give back. And if Obama -- and not McCain -- thinks that's important for our nation's military, then I think we can guess which candidate will do a better job supporting our nation's quilters. (Not that those are mutually exclusive groups, you understand. I have no doubt there are loads of military quilters.)
Finally, McCain lost his gadfly cred when he backed Bush in Iraq and at home. Obama is bucking a long-standing tradition of politics as a backroom business. He believes this nation can do great things again, and he's made me believe that as well. I think he can pull it off, but even if all he does is restore a sense of urgency and excitement about the presidential election, and governing the nation as a whole, he's done us all a great favor. If we can sleep at night knowing our government is not all a bunch of horses' derrieres, then that means we'll be better rested in the morning. And you know what a well rested quilter means, don't you? A more consistent quarter-inch seam. Say it with me: Yes, we can!
Well, has anyone noticed how Barack Obama is being received abroad? Not too shabby, hunh? When you can impress the prime minister of Iraq, King Abdullah of Jordan, the US troops, and the German public, you're doing something right. So, my answer might have been tongue-in-cheek, but it might also have been prescient. How awesome would it be if we had the guy that everyone thought was cool and impressive? They might even like us a little, again.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
We're In The Money (not)
We've arrived -- we finally got an official offer from Chesapeake Energy to lease our land for $2,550 - 2,750/acre, depending on the length of the lease.
We're not going to do it -- it's not worth the money to us -- but I can see why people who leased two years ago for $25 are pissed off. Someone told me that gas leases in Texas are up to $22,000/acre. That might almost get me interested, but . . . probably not.
We're not going to do it -- it's not worth the money to us -- but I can see why people who leased two years ago for $25 are pissed off. Someone told me that gas leases in Texas are up to $22,000/acre. That might almost get me interested, but . . . probably not.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Recount
My ex-husband and I went to see "Recount," the HBO movie about the 2000 presidential election results (or lack thereof). I had free tickets to an advance screening in Philadelphia (although the concept of an advance screening was stretched a bit by the fact that HBO had televised the movie the preceding Sunday -- eh, what did I care? I don't get HBO) and as it was during a trip to Philly for doctors' appointments, and I was staying with the ex, it seemed reasonable to take him along.
My ex-husband, like my current husband, is British. The difference is that I was in the first marriage in 2000, so H. and I had lived through the legal and political debacle that was that election. The movie is rather fun; I enjoyed it well enough. (H. only looked like he was going to explode once that I noticed...) But what the entire event revealed is that politics is everywhere. You would have thought that people -- reasonable people -- would have wanted to have all the votes counted to determine who actually won the election. But no, people -- yes, even reasonable people! -- want their candidate to get elected. And if it seems likely that counting more votes will risk the other guy getting elected, then you don't want more votes counted.
This is important, and sad, in equal measure. I reluctantly agree that Bush would have won -- probably -- if all the votes had been counted. But boy can I disagree with how this all played out. I have a friend, who I suspect of being slightly more Democrat than Republican, and he feels strongly that the Supreme Court was right to close the Florida recount down when it did. I dunno. I still think it's sad that the Supreme Court revealed its own political biases even in the face of its own stated precedents. The same conservative justices who trumpet states' rights voted to stop a state from resolving a state-run election. That just doesn't look good to me. I wasn't a fan of the Supreme Court before that decision, but I thought it had some integrity. I sure don't think so now.
And how outrageous is it that Justice Scalia has the gall to say, in effect, "That's old news. Get over it," when asked by Lesley Stahl about the result in Bush v. Gore on 60 Minutes. This is the court that lives by stare decisis, the principle that they are bound by precedent even decades or centuries old. It was a big deal in 1938 when the court overturned a hundred-year-old principle in Erie v. Tompkins. Eight years ago, and it's "old news"? Oh, that's so annoying.
Otherwise, well, it's politics, innit? I've read the criticisms about how John Hurt has portrayed Warren Christopher; I can't get worked up about them. (After all, they set up one of the film's best jokes, when a Republican operative says of Christopher's manners, "He probably eats his M&Ms with a knife and fork!") Sure, liberals like me wanted the Gore team to get down and fight hard. And particularly now, when we look at what Bush has done with his presidency. But the film version of Warren Christopher was hoping for a reasonable discussion of how to resolve a bizarre situation. What's so bad about being reasonable?
It's like elitism. What's so wrong with elitism? Being elite is a good thing. You want your child to get into an elite college. Barack Obama went to an elite law school. Hillary Clinton went to an elite law school from an elite college. (Of course, what does that prove -- George W. Bush went to an elite college and an elite business school, and I'm not sure he's even close to being anyone's notion of "elite.")
What we don't want is stuffy. We don't want a "not-our-kind-dear" mentality in our politicians. We don't want to feel that politicians are condescending to us. We want to be understood, liked, appreciated, cared for. They do it in different ways, but I think both Obama and Clinton succeed there.
And there's a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Back in 2000, pundits wondered why working class voters were favoring Republicans. The answer, as studies showed, was that they were casting their votes not based on what favored their socio-economic interests in the moment, but what would help them when they got rich. "Aspirational voting," it was called.
I hope that working class voters get it now, during this "not a recession dear" economic down turn, that their interests have not been well served by eight years of a Republican president. Supposedly, back in 2000, Bush was the guy more people wanted to have a beer with. But after eight years of a Bush presidency, can they still afford to drink with him?
It makes you wonder how people would vote now in the 2000 election.
My ex-husband, like my current husband, is British. The difference is that I was in the first marriage in 2000, so H. and I had lived through the legal and political debacle that was that election. The movie is rather fun; I enjoyed it well enough. (H. only looked like he was going to explode once that I noticed...) But what the entire event revealed is that politics is everywhere. You would have thought that people -- reasonable people -- would have wanted to have all the votes counted to determine who actually won the election. But no, people -- yes, even reasonable people! -- want their candidate to get elected. And if it seems likely that counting more votes will risk the other guy getting elected, then you don't want more votes counted.
This is important, and sad, in equal measure. I reluctantly agree that Bush would have won -- probably -- if all the votes had been counted. But boy can I disagree with how this all played out. I have a friend, who I suspect of being slightly more Democrat than Republican, and he feels strongly that the Supreme Court was right to close the Florida recount down when it did. I dunno. I still think it's sad that the Supreme Court revealed its own political biases even in the face of its own stated precedents. The same conservative justices who trumpet states' rights voted to stop a state from resolving a state-run election. That just doesn't look good to me. I wasn't a fan of the Supreme Court before that decision, but I thought it had some integrity. I sure don't think so now.
And how outrageous is it that Justice Scalia has the gall to say, in effect, "That's old news. Get over it," when asked by Lesley Stahl about the result in Bush v. Gore on 60 Minutes. This is the court that lives by stare decisis, the principle that they are bound by precedent even decades or centuries old. It was a big deal in 1938 when the court overturned a hundred-year-old principle in Erie v. Tompkins. Eight years ago, and it's "old news"? Oh, that's so annoying.
Otherwise, well, it's politics, innit? I've read the criticisms about how John Hurt has portrayed Warren Christopher; I can't get worked up about them. (After all, they set up one of the film's best jokes, when a Republican operative says of Christopher's manners, "He probably eats his M&Ms with a knife and fork!") Sure, liberals like me wanted the Gore team to get down and fight hard. And particularly now, when we look at what Bush has done with his presidency. But the film version of Warren Christopher was hoping for a reasonable discussion of how to resolve a bizarre situation. What's so bad about being reasonable?
It's like elitism. What's so wrong with elitism? Being elite is a good thing. You want your child to get into an elite college. Barack Obama went to an elite law school. Hillary Clinton went to an elite law school from an elite college. (Of course, what does that prove -- George W. Bush went to an elite college and an elite business school, and I'm not sure he's even close to being anyone's notion of "elite.")
What we don't want is stuffy. We don't want a "not-our-kind-dear" mentality in our politicians. We don't want to feel that politicians are condescending to us. We want to be understood, liked, appreciated, cared for. They do it in different ways, but I think both Obama and Clinton succeed there.
And there's a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Back in 2000, pundits wondered why working class voters were favoring Republicans. The answer, as studies showed, was that they were casting their votes not based on what favored their socio-economic interests in the moment, but what would help them when they got rich. "Aspirational voting," it was called.
I hope that working class voters get it now, during this "not a recession dear" economic down turn, that their interests have not been well served by eight years of a Republican president. Supposedly, back in 2000, Bush was the guy more people wanted to have a beer with. But after eight years of a Bush presidency, can they still afford to drink with him?
It makes you wonder how people would vote now in the 2000 election.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Trey Casimir
A funny thing happened to me recently. I got an email from a candidate who had met me at the Young Democrats breakfast a couple months ago and wanted to meet in person. Mysteriously, AOL hadn't thought this was spam. For once, they were right!
The candidate is Trey Casimir, running for State Senate in the 23rd district. He's running unopposed for the Democratic slot; three Republicans face off in the primary on the 22nd to see who'll run against Trey. I'm sure the senate seat has been traditionally Republican, but stranger things have happened than that a Democrat has successfully contested the conventional wisdom about who would be best to respresent a predominantly rural section of Pennsylvania in the state legislature!
(Trey's district runs right up the middle of the state, or slightly east of the middle: Parts of Union County, all of Lycoming, Sullivan and Bradford Counties, and the western and northern bits of Susquehanna County. I am not in his district, but that doesn't stop me from supporting him.)
After establishing that I can't vote for him, Trey and I agreed to meet yesterday at a mutually inconvenient spot off I-81. I had a great time talking with him. He's smart, he listens well, he's quirky (that's a compliment coming from me), and he actually reminds me why someone smart would want to run for office. Understand, I'm as cynical as the next person, so of course I assume that people run for office to wield power, or because they're narcissistic and the job supports that, or because they're too stupid for a real job. Or some combination of all three. (Any resemblance to a current president is purely intentional...)
But Trey is none of those things. I actually believe that he wants to make his part of Pennsylvania a better place, and if that means driving hundreds of miles to crisscross five counties, then that's what he'll do. Wow! That's dedication, particularly with gas prices as high as they are.
So where do I come in? Well, it's not because of this blog, which I've neglected mercilessly (insert woefully inadequate excuse here: sickness, planning an overseas wedding, rendered mute by the brilliance of Barack's March 18 "race" speech, etc.). And it's not my sparkling personality, as he could find many more interesting people to approach. Nor is it that I uniquely have my finger on the pulse of the electorate in Susquehanna County. I'm not sure anyone does, but I know I don't!
But Trey's got a much cannier approach to these things. He's on the lookout for smart people to help him with his campaign, and when he finds them, he latches on. Again, the cynical view would be that he just wants my money. He does, but that's not all. He wants my help to get elected, and if he finds a dozen or so more people like me, he's doing well. I can't guarantee votes, but I can work hard and enthusiastically.
What's he got then, to promote such enthusiasm? Well, smarts is the first thing. He's thought about a lot of issues I hadn't even contemplated, such as the effect of making I-80 (which runs through the southern part of his district) a toll road. (His approach: make it a toll road going into Pennsylvania, but not leaving the state. That will capture a lot of the revenue from traffic travelling the length of the highway, but leave alone those drivers just going 30 miles in one direction or another.) He's thought about truckers, and says that trucking is one of the few remaining blue collar jobs available. I respect that sort of thinking -- I wonder if the current crop of millionaire Republicans running for local office have really thought about the effect of diesel fuel costs on the welfare of a substantial population in the area? And he's thought about the ecomony. He's in favor of state-generate tax rebates to stimulate the economy. I don't necessarily agree with him about that, but I respect his wanting a statewide approach to the economy.
Most of all, I'm encouraged by candidates like Trey and Chris Carney. They bring a comprehension to the issues of life in rural Pennsylvania -- they understand why people want to live here, and what those people need to make it here. And most of all, they get it that what we really need is not to be ignored by Washington or Harrisburg. I want someone smart talking about the issues important in our part of Pennsylvania. And even if he won't be my senator in Harrisburg, he'll do a great job looking out for my neighbors just a few miles to the west of me. I take the approach that if my neighbors are better off, I'm better off.
So, yeah, I'll send him money. And I'll host an open house in the summer. I'll even drive down to Lewisburg and stuff envelopes. I want to do this, but I also feel I have to do this. A prosperous future here means having guys like Trey stepping up and saying, "Yeah, I'll run. I'll serve." And that future is achieveable if people like me say, "Yeah, I'll help out. Just tell me what you need."
The candidate is Trey Casimir, running for State Senate in the 23rd district. He's running unopposed for the Democratic slot; three Republicans face off in the primary on the 22nd to see who'll run against Trey. I'm sure the senate seat has been traditionally Republican, but stranger things have happened than that a Democrat has successfully contested the conventional wisdom about who would be best to respresent a predominantly rural section of Pennsylvania in the state legislature!
(Trey's district runs right up the middle of the state, or slightly east of the middle: Parts of Union County, all of Lycoming, Sullivan and Bradford Counties, and the western and northern bits of Susquehanna County. I am not in his district, but that doesn't stop me from supporting him.)
After establishing that I can't vote for him, Trey and I agreed to meet yesterday at a mutually inconvenient spot off I-81. I had a great time talking with him. He's smart, he listens well, he's quirky (that's a compliment coming from me), and he actually reminds me why someone smart would want to run for office. Understand, I'm as cynical as the next person, so of course I assume that people run for office to wield power, or because they're narcissistic and the job supports that, or because they're too stupid for a real job. Or some combination of all three. (Any resemblance to a current president is purely intentional...)
But Trey is none of those things. I actually believe that he wants to make his part of Pennsylvania a better place, and if that means driving hundreds of miles to crisscross five counties, then that's what he'll do. Wow! That's dedication, particularly with gas prices as high as they are.
So where do I come in? Well, it's not because of this blog, which I've neglected mercilessly (insert woefully inadequate excuse here: sickness, planning an overseas wedding, rendered mute by the brilliance of Barack's March 18 "race" speech, etc.). And it's not my sparkling personality, as he could find many more interesting people to approach. Nor is it that I uniquely have my finger on the pulse of the electorate in Susquehanna County. I'm not sure anyone does, but I know I don't!
But Trey's got a much cannier approach to these things. He's on the lookout for smart people to help him with his campaign, and when he finds them, he latches on. Again, the cynical view would be that he just wants my money. He does, but that's not all. He wants my help to get elected, and if he finds a dozen or so more people like me, he's doing well. I can't guarantee votes, but I can work hard and enthusiastically.
What's he got then, to promote such enthusiasm? Well, smarts is the first thing. He's thought about a lot of issues I hadn't even contemplated, such as the effect of making I-80 (which runs through the southern part of his district) a toll road. (His approach: make it a toll road going into Pennsylvania, but not leaving the state. That will capture a lot of the revenue from traffic travelling the length of the highway, but leave alone those drivers just going 30 miles in one direction or another.) He's thought about truckers, and says that trucking is one of the few remaining blue collar jobs available. I respect that sort of thinking -- I wonder if the current crop of millionaire Republicans running for local office have really thought about the effect of diesel fuel costs on the welfare of a substantial population in the area? And he's thought about the ecomony. He's in favor of state-generate tax rebates to stimulate the economy. I don't necessarily agree with him about that, but I respect his wanting a statewide approach to the economy.
Most of all, I'm encouraged by candidates like Trey and Chris Carney. They bring a comprehension to the issues of life in rural Pennsylvania -- they understand why people want to live here, and what those people need to make it here. And most of all, they get it that what we really need is not to be ignored by Washington or Harrisburg. I want someone smart talking about the issues important in our part of Pennsylvania. And even if he won't be my senator in Harrisburg, he'll do a great job looking out for my neighbors just a few miles to the west of me. I take the approach that if my neighbors are better off, I'm better off.
So, yeah, I'll send him money. And I'll host an open house in the summer. I'll even drive down to Lewisburg and stuff envelopes. I want to do this, but I also feel I have to do this. A prosperous future here means having guys like Trey stepping up and saying, "Yeah, I'll run. I'll serve." And that future is achieveable if people like me say, "Yeah, I'll help out. Just tell me what you need."
Friday, February 29, 2008
Presidential Candidates
I favor Barack, myself. That's okay -- I know people who favor Hillary, and I think no less of them. My reasons for backing Barack Obama are, possibly, unique to me. I can explain them, but I can hardly require others to agree with me. Here they are:
My parents were born in 1914 & 1919, respectively, so they grew up Depression children. They were both Roosevelt Democrats, and their stories of FDR were inspiring to me as I grew up. Like him or not, I gather he had at least three things going for him: 1) He was a gifted speaker, using rhetoric to support, console, reassure, and rally a nation facing a profound economic crisis that affected everyone, and then the attack on Pearl Harbor and our subsequent entry into WWII. 2) He got things done. You can argue about the New Deal, but it did something. You can argue about his foreign policy, but it did something. 3) He got us into a just war.
I was born in 1956. Here's my personal report card on the presidents in my lifetime:
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Not a great speaker. Got things done, though (I love the Interstate system). Not sure about the Korean War. Final grade: B-
John F. Kennedy: Great speaker. Got some things done (space program, Peace Corps); didn't get other things done (civil rights; foreign policy crises). Got Vietnam started. Final grade: B
Lyndon Johnson: Not a great speaker ("my felluh Muricans"). Got some cool domestic things done (civil rights -- for which I give him, as a Texan, extra credit). Escalated the Vietnam War rather than shutting it down. Final grade: B+
Richard Nixon: Terrible speaker -- it's never a good sign when you're that easy to satirize. His accomplishments in foreign policy (China) are vastly outweighed by his bungling of the Vietnam war, and I can't think of a domestic accomplishment to offset Watergate. Vietnam turned out to be an unwinnable war. We withdrew after killing far too many of everybody: our troops, the South Vietnamese troops & civilians, and North Vietnamese troops & civilians. Yes, we should have respected the sacrifice of our military men and women when they came home; that's a national shame I hope we've forever learned not to do, but I wonder why our current leaders don't respect their sacrifice by not inflicting it so cavalierly on a new generation of military personal and families. Final grade: D- (I gotta grade on a curve, and someone is actually worse. See below.)
Gerald Ford: Not a great speaker. (Personal disclosure: My opinion of Ford's speeches was warped by the fact that my dad went to law school with him and said when Gerry spoke in class, he was particularly bland and vacuous.) Can't think of anything bad he did, nor anything good. He tried to heal the nation after Watergate: enh. Didn't get us into war, though. Final grade: C.
Jimmy Carter: Not a great speaker as president. No great accomplishments while in office, and the hostage crisis was not his finest hour. (Can't help thinking FDR or Truman would have done something...) Didn't wage war, though. Tough one for me, but I have to say it. Final grade: C+ (Final grade as a former president: A+ Truly, he lives and thinks as we all should, but don't.)
Ronald Reagan: Not a great speaker, for me personally. Joviality does not a great president make, I think. I personally have a hard time naming his accomplishments, perhaps because I don't think trickle-down economics made sense. (I'll concede he advanced the conservative Republican agenda; you'll forgive me if I don't list that as an accomplishment. If you think that was great, write your own blog.) I think he endorsed the notion that we (Americans) get it all and pay nothing for it, which is one of the reasons our environmental & energy policies are so screwy now. Iran-Contra was a problem too, and either he tacitly endorsed that, or he was asleep at the switch. I can't really hold Granada against him, but I don't think he gets credit for the hostages being released on the day he took office, nor the collapse of Communism. (I'd give the nod to Mikhail Gorbachev for that one.) Final grade: D+
George H. W. Bush: Not a great speaker (think Dana Carvey's "Not prudent at this juncture"; see Nixon, above). I totally give him credit for raising taxes, and I think he was right to do that. No big surprise that it was political suicide. Doesn't matter, it was what we needed and I'm glad he did it. Hated his domestic policy, though -- 1,000 points of [expletive deleted], if you ask me. I do give him points for getting the Kuwait/Iran thing right. Too bad his son couldn't leave well enough alone. Final grade: B-
Bill Clinton: Great speaker, even if Darrell Hammond skewered him on SNL. (No, I wasn't a great Bill Clinton fan, but even I was able to stomach the State of the Union when he did it.) Didn't get health care done (recognizing that it needs doing doesn't really count, particularly as he darn near left it undoable for a political generation); did get welfare reform done.* Economy boomed, and he actually accomplished a surplus. Whoo-hoo! Did not take us into war -- unless you count Kosovo, which I don't. Final grade: B
George W. Bush: Worst speaker of the bunch. Seriously -- worse than Nixon. (Nixon actually was a pretty smart guy, regrettably.) I can't think of a good accomplishment, and the list of bad ones keeps being written. (Latest example: he's threatening to veto a tax incentive for renewable energy like wind and solar because it's funding would come from cancelling tax incentives for oil and gas companies. I mean, seriously -- that's not even close to passing the smell test after the record profits Exxon & the like have posted recently. Let them fund their own damn exploration! Insanity.) And he fails the "unjust war" test worst of all, particularly as he has created the very condition he lied about to get us in there. I have some sympathy for John McCain's predicament -- he may be right that we have to stay in there because now (NOW!) there are terrorists in Iran because Bush took away the dictator keeping al-Qaeda out. And don't give me that "But Saddam was a brutal dictator" crap -- we've been supporting brutal, torturing Right-Wing dictators in South American for years. Final grade: F
So there you have it. About the candidates, here are my predicted grade ranges:
John McCain: Not a bad speaker, but not great. His potential accomplishments, or lack thereof, rather depend on whether he'll do the same switcheroo as Dubya, only in the other direction. When Bush ran in 2000, we heard a lot about compassionate conservativism, but that sure didn't seem to be a part of his presidency (with one teeny exception: inexplicablyly he funds HIV services worldwide). Well, we're now hearing a lot of mainstream conservative positions from McCain as he panders to the Christian Right, the anti-immigration crowd, and so forth. If we get the old McCain for president, he could be very good for the country: election reform would be a great boon to our political process! If we get the new, Genghis Kahn-version of McCain -- well, that will just be very sad. He'll be maintaining a bad war, which is a thankless task. Potential grade range: anywhere from a Reagan-esque D+ to a LBJ-style B+
Hillary Clinton: I'm not a fan of her speaking style, which isn't as rousing as her husband's. She has accomplished a lot as New York's junior senator, so we might really do well. I worry, though, that she'll be a micro-manager who gets bogged down in details and her paranoia goes off the charts, resulting in some really ugly stuff. I know she won't take us back into war unless she really needs to -- that's an area where I think a woman is an excellent choice. (Seriously -- moms know how to pick their battles with bullies.) Potential grade range: anywhere from a Nixon-like meltdown-causing D- to an outstanding A-.
Barack Obama: Great speaker. First one in a LONG time to inspire and heal, I think. I have real hope for his accomplishments because I think he understands the value of learning what works by trying lots of stuff, and then putting in place the one that works. Like Hillary, he'll get us out of Iraq and I believe he'll use a much more global/diplomatic approach to combating terrorism. And so he's the only one I can see getting an FDR-caliber A+. At his very, very worst, I can't see him getting lower than a Kennedy B.
But that's just me.
*Here's my sidebar on economics vs. entitlement programs: I'm all for entitlement programs. I would fund Headstart to the max. I would fund a huge increase in TeachAmerica. I would have sent in the Army Corps of Engineers to the Gulf Coast post-Katrina and told them to stay until. But, we have to get real about Medicare and Social Security. They will bankrupt us eventually, and while it surely has not helped to launch and fund a morass-of-a-military-campaign in the Middle East, that's chicken-feed compared to the two worst economic problems looming. I applauded Bill Clinton's welfare reform because I believe it's good to get entrenched programs out of the trench and re-formed. We have to do the same with our programs for the elderly.
The problem with Medicare and Social Security is that no one will ever vote against the interests of Grandmas & Pop-pops, particularly with so many of us heading inexorably into old age. We can't pick on old people -- they don't deserve it the way "welfare mothers" did. (For some reason, you have to demonize the recipient of an entitlement program before you can "reform" it.) Well, that's just crazy. How is it going to help Grandma & Pop-pop if the country is bankrupt? I am not suggesting we cut them off cold turkey, but we have to do something now about the money we're going to owe then. If we announced, "The minimum age will go up in X years," we have a chance to get people used to the idea. But we talk about the "third rail of politics" and do nothing. Boy, what a great suit the emperor is wearing today!
My parents were born in 1914 & 1919, respectively, so they grew up Depression children. They were both Roosevelt Democrats, and their stories of FDR were inspiring to me as I grew up. Like him or not, I gather he had at least three things going for him: 1) He was a gifted speaker, using rhetoric to support, console, reassure, and rally a nation facing a profound economic crisis that affected everyone, and then the attack on Pearl Harbor and our subsequent entry into WWII. 2) He got things done. You can argue about the New Deal, but it did something. You can argue about his foreign policy, but it did something. 3) He got us into a just war.
I was born in 1956. Here's my personal report card on the presidents in my lifetime:
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Not a great speaker. Got things done, though (I love the Interstate system). Not sure about the Korean War. Final grade: B-
John F. Kennedy: Great speaker. Got some things done (space program, Peace Corps); didn't get other things done (civil rights; foreign policy crises). Got Vietnam started. Final grade: B
Lyndon Johnson: Not a great speaker ("my felluh Muricans"). Got some cool domestic things done (civil rights -- for which I give him, as a Texan, extra credit). Escalated the Vietnam War rather than shutting it down. Final grade: B+
Richard Nixon: Terrible speaker -- it's never a good sign when you're that easy to satirize. His accomplishments in foreign policy (China) are vastly outweighed by his bungling of the Vietnam war, and I can't think of a domestic accomplishment to offset Watergate. Vietnam turned out to be an unwinnable war. We withdrew after killing far too many of everybody: our troops, the South Vietnamese troops & civilians, and North Vietnamese troops & civilians. Yes, we should have respected the sacrifice of our military men and women when they came home; that's a national shame I hope we've forever learned not to do, but I wonder why our current leaders don't respect their sacrifice by not inflicting it so cavalierly on a new generation of military personal and families. Final grade: D- (I gotta grade on a curve, and someone is actually worse. See below.)
Gerald Ford: Not a great speaker. (Personal disclosure: My opinion of Ford's speeches was warped by the fact that my dad went to law school with him and said when Gerry spoke in class, he was particularly bland and vacuous.) Can't think of anything bad he did, nor anything good. He tried to heal the nation after Watergate: enh. Didn't get us into war, though. Final grade: C.
Jimmy Carter: Not a great speaker as president. No great accomplishments while in office, and the hostage crisis was not his finest hour. (Can't help thinking FDR or Truman would have done something...) Didn't wage war, though. Tough one for me, but I have to say it. Final grade: C+ (Final grade as a former president: A+ Truly, he lives and thinks as we all should, but don't.)
Ronald Reagan: Not a great speaker, for me personally. Joviality does not a great president make, I think. I personally have a hard time naming his accomplishments, perhaps because I don't think trickle-down economics made sense. (I'll concede he advanced the conservative Republican agenda; you'll forgive me if I don't list that as an accomplishment. If you think that was great, write your own blog.) I think he endorsed the notion that we (Americans) get it all and pay nothing for it, which is one of the reasons our environmental & energy policies are so screwy now. Iran-Contra was a problem too, and either he tacitly endorsed that, or he was asleep at the switch. I can't really hold Granada against him, but I don't think he gets credit for the hostages being released on the day he took office, nor the collapse of Communism. (I'd give the nod to Mikhail Gorbachev for that one.) Final grade: D+
George H. W. Bush: Not a great speaker (think Dana Carvey's "Not prudent at this juncture"; see Nixon, above). I totally give him credit for raising taxes, and I think he was right to do that. No big surprise that it was political suicide. Doesn't matter, it was what we needed and I'm glad he did it. Hated his domestic policy, though -- 1,000 points of [expletive deleted], if you ask me. I do give him points for getting the Kuwait/Iran thing right. Too bad his son couldn't leave well enough alone. Final grade: B-
Bill Clinton: Great speaker, even if Darrell Hammond skewered him on SNL. (No, I wasn't a great Bill Clinton fan, but even I was able to stomach the State of the Union when he did it.) Didn't get health care done (recognizing that it needs doing doesn't really count, particularly as he darn near left it undoable for a political generation); did get welfare reform done.* Economy boomed, and he actually accomplished a surplus. Whoo-hoo! Did not take us into war -- unless you count Kosovo, which I don't. Final grade: B
George W. Bush: Worst speaker of the bunch. Seriously -- worse than Nixon. (Nixon actually was a pretty smart guy, regrettably.) I can't think of a good accomplishment, and the list of bad ones keeps being written. (Latest example: he's threatening to veto a tax incentive for renewable energy like wind and solar because it's funding would come from cancelling tax incentives for oil and gas companies. I mean, seriously -- that's not even close to passing the smell test after the record profits Exxon & the like have posted recently. Let them fund their own damn exploration! Insanity.) And he fails the "unjust war" test worst of all, particularly as he has created the very condition he lied about to get us in there. I have some sympathy for John McCain's predicament -- he may be right that we have to stay in there because now (NOW!) there are terrorists in Iran because Bush took away the dictator keeping al-Qaeda out. And don't give me that "But Saddam was a brutal dictator" crap -- we've been supporting brutal, torturing Right-Wing dictators in South American for years. Final grade: F
So there you have it. About the candidates, here are my predicted grade ranges:
John McCain: Not a bad speaker, but not great. His potential accomplishments, or lack thereof, rather depend on whether he'll do the same switcheroo as Dubya, only in the other direction. When Bush ran in 2000, we heard a lot about compassionate conservativism, but that sure didn't seem to be a part of his presidency (with one teeny exception: inexplicablyly he funds HIV services worldwide). Well, we're now hearing a lot of mainstream conservative positions from McCain as he panders to the Christian Right, the anti-immigration crowd, and so forth. If we get the old McCain for president, he could be very good for the country: election reform would be a great boon to our political process! If we get the new, Genghis Kahn-version of McCain -- well, that will just be very sad. He'll be maintaining a bad war, which is a thankless task. Potential grade range: anywhere from a Reagan-esque D+ to a LBJ-style B+
Hillary Clinton: I'm not a fan of her speaking style, which isn't as rousing as her husband's. She has accomplished a lot as New York's junior senator, so we might really do well. I worry, though, that she'll be a micro-manager who gets bogged down in details and her paranoia goes off the charts, resulting in some really ugly stuff. I know she won't take us back into war unless she really needs to -- that's an area where I think a woman is an excellent choice. (Seriously -- moms know how to pick their battles with bullies.) Potential grade range: anywhere from a Nixon-like meltdown-causing D- to an outstanding A-.
Barack Obama: Great speaker. First one in a LONG time to inspire and heal, I think. I have real hope for his accomplishments because I think he understands the value of learning what works by trying lots of stuff, and then putting in place the one that works. Like Hillary, he'll get us out of Iraq and I believe he'll use a much more global/diplomatic approach to combating terrorism. And so he's the only one I can see getting an FDR-caliber A+. At his very, very worst, I can't see him getting lower than a Kennedy B.
But that's just me.
*Here's my sidebar on economics vs. entitlement programs: I'm all for entitlement programs. I would fund Headstart to the max. I would fund a huge increase in TeachAmerica. I would have sent in the Army Corps of Engineers to the Gulf Coast post-Katrina and told them to stay until. But, we have to get real about Medicare and Social Security. They will bankrupt us eventually, and while it surely has not helped to launch and fund a morass-of-a-military-campaign in the Middle East, that's chicken-feed compared to the two worst economic problems looming. I applauded Bill Clinton's welfare reform because I believe it's good to get entrenched programs out of the trench and re-formed. We have to do the same with our programs for the elderly.
The problem with Medicare and Social Security is that no one will ever vote against the interests of Grandmas & Pop-pops, particularly with so many of us heading inexorably into old age. We can't pick on old people -- they don't deserve it the way "welfare mothers" did. (For some reason, you have to demonize the recipient of an entitlement program before you can "reform" it.) Well, that's just crazy. How is it going to help Grandma & Pop-pop if the country is bankrupt? I am not suggesting we cut them off cold turkey, but we have to do something now about the money we're going to owe then. If we announced, "The minimum age will go up in X years," we have a chance to get people used to the idea. But we talk about the "third rail of politics" and do nothing. Boy, what a great suit the emperor is wearing today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
