For the second day in a row, a former teacher of mine has made the pages of the St. Petersburg Times. Professor Davis, an authority on Florida environmental history, has an op-ed today.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics, School on March 29th, 2011 | No Comments »
The terrible shooting in Tucson yesterday is extremely disheartening, not least because the victims seem to have been decent people exercising their Constitutional right of peaceable assembly.
Almost as soon as I heard the news, I began hearing people on each side of the political spectrum either placing blame, or deflecting blame. Indeed, it is too early to know much about the motives of the alleged murderer. He may be an entirely apolitical lunatic. As NPR reported yesterday afternoon, there have been a few instances of assassins and attempted-assassins acting with no apparent political motives. John Hinckley simply wanted to impress Jodie Foster, for instance.
Conversely, we may find that the murderer in this instance was an avowed political reactionary, and Representative Giffords was his ideologically enemy. Or, perhaps, the attempted assassin is a radical, and the congresswoman was not liberal enough for him. Again, we do not know anything yet.
Whatever the facts, the New York Times ran an outstanding Op-Ed today that offers good advice for all of us. I won’t quote the piece, because each paragraph requires the context of the next paragraph to make its argument. I will simply suggest that you read it.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics on January 9th, 2011 | No Comments »
More than almost anything else, I hate phony outrage. That is, I cannot abide the loud shouting by those whose indignation is not sincere. You see it constantly these days. Politicians and the public on one side will pretend to be enraged by the behavior or policies of some other politician or group, when, in fact, those “outraged” people know that they have committed the same misdeeds, or supported policies no better than the ones about which they now pretend to be angry. Rush Limbaugh derided illegal drug users for years while hiding his own drug problem. Republicans, who praised President Bush for ignoring the polls and going ahead with the troop surge in Iraq, today criticize Democrats for ignoring the polls on healthcare reform.
Phony outrage bothers me because it is simultaneously false and hypocritical. And it gets attention. A man holding a sign and shouting is bound to have a television camera pointed at him, no matter how ridiculous his claims.
It would be easy to dismiss those in the “Tea Party” movement as simple phonies. After all, members of that group, which burns President Obama in effigy, only a few years ago claimed that any criticism of the president was “unpatriotic”, and that those who opposed George W. Bush’s policies were “with the terrorists”. That is phony outrage, pure and simple.
But the Tea Party movement presents another, equally troublesome phenomenon: ignorant outrage. As Bruce Bartlett, the outspoken Republican and former Reagan adviser, writes at Forbes.com, most Tea Party people completely misunderstand the issues about which they are so angry. Members of the Tea Party movement were surveyed about taxes under President Obama, and, “no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are”. When asked, for instance, whether, under Obama, taxes are higher, lower, or the same, two-thirds thought taxes were higher. In fact, as Bartlett points out, “federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president”.
Meanwhile,
Tea Partyers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.
Tuesday’s Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.
As Bartlett points out, “it’s hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality”. I’m not so sure. How often do talk radio hosts criticize Democrats for raising taxes? A lot, from what I can tell. And yet, “there hasn’t been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993″. Nevertheless, politicians and pundits drone on and on about how high taxes are burdening families, and driving down the economy. Those politicians and pundits know better (or ought to). Their outrage is phony. But the public–which by and large, doesn’t read the newspaper, or know the first thing about economics, history, geography, or almost any other subject–hears the talking heads and believes. Thus, phony outrage becomes ignorant outrage.
Don’t get me wrong. I wholeheartedly support righteous indignation. That is, if you really believe something, state your position honestly, and advocate for your cause, I will, at least, respect your efforts. However, as the saying goes, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Be honest; be consistent. That goes for both sides.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics on March 22nd, 2010 | No Comments »
The 2010 Winter Olympics concluded this week, and I could hardly have watched more of them if I wanted. I tuned in every night for two weeks, and even though there were sports I didn’t care to see (snowboarding, ice dancing, etc.), and even though I wish NBC weren’t so captivated by a cult of personality, focusing too much attention on big celebrity athletes, I enjoyed most of it a great deal. And, in spite of the fact that the weather sometimes didn’t fully cooperate, and some of the venues experienced technical difficulties, Vancouver seems the ideal place for Olympic games.
But not everyone likes the idea of the Olympics moving from city to city, country to country. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Monday, former Olympic rower, Charles Banks-Altekruse, argues that the Olympic games–both summer and winter–should move permanently to Switzerland.
Banks-Altekruse correctly points out that the Olympics are hugely expensive events that can be financially crippling to the host cities and countries. Part of Greece’s present fiscal turmoil is due, no doubt, to the 2004 games in Athens. Meanwhile, I clearly remember how worried people were about whether the Olympic facilities and venues would be complete in time for the games. The paint was still drying when the 2004 Olympics began. That Greece had to build arenas and a stadium from scratch is emblematic of what makes the Olympics so costly for host cities. Beijing built hugely expensive facilities that now lie dormant. Sochi is building a new Olympic park from scratch that will, no doubt, cost a fortune. Rio de Janeiro will spend billions of dollars it simply doesn’t have to host the 2016 summer games.
Atlanta spent tons of money, too, but did things a bit smarter. The stadium that hosted the opening and closing ceremonies as well as track and field in 1996 was converted to host baseball after the games concluded. Other Olympic events were held at facilities at universities in northern Georgia. Los Angeles, too, used existing infrastructure in 1984, and made money. But times have changed, and expectations have changed. I suspect that, like professional sports teams do, the International Olympic Committee now expects the latest and greatest, and an old stadium–the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was over sixty-years-old when the 1984 games began–simply wouldn’t do.
Meanwhile, Banks-Altekruse argues that potential political conflicts like the one that thwarted his Olympic hopes in Moscow in 1980, and kept Eastern Bloc nations away from Los Angeles in 1984, make it essential that the Olympics find a permanent, neutral home. I acknowledge that that was a big shame, and, in retrospect, neither of those cities was the ideal choice, since the IOC certainly must have realized that boycotts would occur.
But I think the political climate around the world have changed in the past twenty-five years, and I doubt that we will see another significant Olympic boycott, unless future games are, somehow, awarded to Tibet or Somalia.
And, though the financial issue is a serious matter, I don’t believe that that justifies moving the Olympics permanently to Switzerland, which would, according to Banks-Altekruse, be able to afford its hosting duties by averaging out the construction costs over a long term.
No, I think too much is gained by having the Olympics move around the world. The experience seems richer, and the international goodwill, I believe, is genuine.
Filed under: Current Events, Musings, Politics, Sports on March 4th, 2010 | No Comments »
President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today. Like everyone else, I was surprised to read the news this morning. Some people, however, are demonstrating a complete lack of class by whining about the Nobel Committee’s decision. It isn’t just Republicans; many on the far-left are griping. Stop it, everyone.
Obviously, President Obama hasn’t accomplished peace in the Middle East, or achieved nuclear disarmament. Obviously, nine months in office isn’t much time to solve the complex issue of Islamic extremism. Obama himself said that he didn’t feel he deserved it, and, indeed, it seems odd, particularly when some past recipients devoted their entire lives to peace, like Martin Luther King, Jr. But the committee evidently believes that, tangible results or not, Obama has promoted peace, if only by turning America’s diplomatic posture from one of reckless aggression to one of respect for our allies. The award citation reads in part: “Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.” If that’s the criteria the committee set, then that’s the criteria.
But I think that the committee also intended to send a message about what they–and really the rest of the world–would like to see from the United States. I believe Senator John McCain understands this quite well: “I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order”.
Americans should be pleased, as Senator McCain says. But, as has been demonstrated recently, there are some whose disdain for Obama exceeds their love for America. The people who cheered when Chicago lost its Olympic bid showed their true colors. Disapprove of Obama’s politics if you want; it is perfectly patriotic to disagree with a president or a legislature when you do so in an intellectually honest manner. But I cannot respect anyone who would rather America lose than Obama win.
A sitting American president has once again won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the appropriate response is not derision, but careful consideration of what message has been made. President Obama didn’t solicit this award, and I’ll bet that if it were up to him, he’d rather they have picked someone else. But the Nobel Committee made their choice, and now Obama’s presidency will take up the crusade. If promoting peace is his “call to action”, as he put it, so much the better. And, if you don’t think America’s cause is peace, then I feel sorry for you.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics on October 9th, 2009 | No Comments »