Dubya wants to pay for reconstructing New Orleans (and by extension, everywhere along the Gulf Coast damaged by Hurricane Katrina) by cutting spending to other federal programs. He has rejected outright raising taxes, and he does not want to increase the federal deficit beyond its already (thanks largely to him) astronomical levels.
The majority of Americans apparently agrees with him. Two polls discussed on NPR this morning reveal that the public also believes cutting other federal spending is the way to go . . . though when given the choice of which federal spending to cut, most Americans say cut spending on the war in Iraq. Somehow, I don't think Dubya will go for that one.
The problem is that many in Congress, including Republicans, think there's no more fat to delete from the federal budget.
You know what's coming, don't you?
Wait for it . . .
Ah, it will be the end of the dreaded social programs, a/k/a entitlements, which is what Dubya's goal has been all along.
So we are going back to the Gilded Age in more ways than one. The stable middle class will disappear, and we're going to wind up with a permanent underclass--and eventually, I fear, a shooting war, right here in River City. And that's Trouble with a capital T and that rimes with P and that stands for Phooey.
I will not make the claim that Dubya is responsible for the hurricane itself, though his head-in-the-sand approach to clear evidence of global warming hasn't helped. He sure knows how to take advantage of an opportunity when he gets one, though, doesn't he?
This is mostly old news to those of us who have been paying attention. My current outrage is at the pollsters, who seem entirely incapable of asking questions to get the answers that really reflect what the public thinks and not just reflecting what the pollsters want to establish.
If pollsters would either (1) ask open-ended questions, instead of making people choose among too-limited options, and/or (2) give complete options if they must use multiple-choice questions, I think the pollsters would find out that almost no one wants to cut assistance to the elderly and disabled or to the truly poor and destitute, and that no one wants to wipe out all the safety nets currently in place in federal law, like effective and enforced clean air and water standards, safe working conditions and livable union wages, automobile safety and fuel efficiency standards, and the like. Yet these are the very things that Dubya already is attacking in his quest to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
But if someone just says, "Do you want the government to pay for this by cutting other spending or raising taxes," of course people are going to choose cutting spending. No one wants to pay more than they now pay, even though in many cases what they now pay is simply not enough.
People forget that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thank Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for that astute observation. Cut taxes enough, and civilization will eventually disappear in a hail of gunfire.
People also forget that we formed the United States in the first place to create "a more perfect Union." OK, so originally that meant that we adopted the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough . . . but stop and think about that for a minute. Why should we go back to a type of Articles of Confederation system in fact though not in name?
The short answer, of course, is that we shouldn't. It would mean the end of the United States, again in fact if not in name. But that's what is going to happen if Dubya gets his way on how to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
When are people going to realize that the past was no idyllic Golden Age? Not for Joe Schmoe, anyway, even if it was for the Morgans and the Vanderbilts and their ilk.
Consider, however: even if it were for Joe Schmoe, there is never any going back. I liken this to being a college student vs. being a job-holding adult who then loses his/her job. College students, most of whom have never had significant money, have no problem with living on a minimal budget. But once they've had a job and have had a serious, steady income, cutting that income makes their lives much harder. It is always harder to give something up than never to have had something to begin with.
Thus, if Dubya doesn't get his way about further cuts to federal spending, we're just going to run even bigger deficits than we do now. Unless the populace gets religion, that is, and realizes that it's well past the time to pay the piper. An old Fram oil filters advertising campaign had it right: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Later is always more expensive, be it in time or money lost, options lost, mutual goodwill lost, or (most frighteningly) social cohesion obliterated.
Are you quaking in your boots yet? You should be.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Thursday, September 15, 2005
M-V-P! M-V-P!
It's that time of year again, when those of us with nothing better to do (or even if we do have better things to do) start debating the annual baseball individual all-season performance awards, such as the Most Valuable Player in each league, National and American.
To me, the MVP is the player whose presence made the biggest impact on the success of his team, not just the player with the gaudiest statistics. In the National League, my MVP is Andruw Jones of the Atlanta Braves. So many Braves players were injured at some points during the season that the team was fielding 7 rookies in its starting lineup . . . and yet Andruw Jones made sure that Atlanta got to (and stayed in) first place in the NL East by his defensive prowess, his offensive skills, and his sheer leadership.
I know that several people want to give the MVP to Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals. He's a stellar player on a stellar team, and over the past several years has been overshadowed in the MVP voting by Barry Bonds, the epitome of gaudy statistics; so, it has been said that Pujols should win because he's deserved it for so long.
However, the Cardinals would most probably be exactly where they are (in first in the NL Central) whether Pujols was there or not, so I don't think he should win the MVP this year. Now, the Roberto Clemente award for community service, that's another matter. Pujols' work with Down's Syndrome and other disabled kids is fabulous, and deserves more recognition than it seems to be getting.
Some folks are even rooting for Derrick Lee of the Chicago Cubs to get the MVP. It's true that Lee is having a career year--he was in the lead in all 3 of the vaunted "Triple Crown" categories (home runs, RBI, and batting average) for most of the first half of the season, and is still in first, second, or third place in each of the categories as I post this)--but the Cubs are mired in the miasma of 4th place, about two games under .500. Thus, Lee's performance this season, as great and sustained as it has been, is not to my mind MVP calibre. The Cubs are just too miserable and underperforming a team this year.
So let's just give the NL MVP award to Andruw Jones and be done with it.
I do not follow the AL as closely as I follow the NL. I'm with Crash Davis: Congress ought to pass a constitutional amendment against artificial turf and the designated hitter rule. Nevertheless, my personal favorite for AL MVP is someone who's done mostly designated hitting this year, to wit: David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox.
"Big Papi," as Ortiz is known, has hit more game-breaking home runs in his limited playing time than anyone else I can think of in recent memory. His bat has kept Boston in first place in the AL East, ahead of the dreaded NY Yankees, nearly every time Boston has seemed like it was going to slip out of the lead and thus make defending its 2004 World Series Championship less and less likely.
I can't even think of anyone else in the AL worth considering for the MVP right now. I do not think pitchers should be in the running for the MVP, mostly because they have their own Cy Young awards to compete for.
And that's the news from Lake Wobegon.
To me, the MVP is the player whose presence made the biggest impact on the success of his team, not just the player with the gaudiest statistics. In the National League, my MVP is Andruw Jones of the Atlanta Braves. So many Braves players were injured at some points during the season that the team was fielding 7 rookies in its starting lineup . . . and yet Andruw Jones made sure that Atlanta got to (and stayed in) first place in the NL East by his defensive prowess, his offensive skills, and his sheer leadership.
I know that several people want to give the MVP to Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals. He's a stellar player on a stellar team, and over the past several years has been overshadowed in the MVP voting by Barry Bonds, the epitome of gaudy statistics; so, it has been said that Pujols should win because he's deserved it for so long.
However, the Cardinals would most probably be exactly where they are (in first in the NL Central) whether Pujols was there or not, so I don't think he should win the MVP this year. Now, the Roberto Clemente award for community service, that's another matter. Pujols' work with Down's Syndrome and other disabled kids is fabulous, and deserves more recognition than it seems to be getting.
Some folks are even rooting for Derrick Lee of the Chicago Cubs to get the MVP. It's true that Lee is having a career year--he was in the lead in all 3 of the vaunted "Triple Crown" categories (home runs, RBI, and batting average) for most of the first half of the season, and is still in first, second, or third place in each of the categories as I post this)--but the Cubs are mired in the miasma of 4th place, about two games under .500. Thus, Lee's performance this season, as great and sustained as it has been, is not to my mind MVP calibre. The Cubs are just too miserable and underperforming a team this year.
So let's just give the NL MVP award to Andruw Jones and be done with it.
I do not follow the AL as closely as I follow the NL. I'm with Crash Davis: Congress ought to pass a constitutional amendment against artificial turf and the designated hitter rule. Nevertheless, my personal favorite for AL MVP is someone who's done mostly designated hitting this year, to wit: David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox.
"Big Papi," as Ortiz is known, has hit more game-breaking home runs in his limited playing time than anyone else I can think of in recent memory. His bat has kept Boston in first place in the AL East, ahead of the dreaded NY Yankees, nearly every time Boston has seemed like it was going to slip out of the lead and thus make defending its 2004 World Series Championship less and less likely.
I can't even think of anyone else in the AL worth considering for the MVP right now. I do not think pitchers should be in the running for the MVP, mostly because they have their own Cy Young awards to compete for.
And that's the news from Lake Wobegon.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A Tidbit
I am sick to death of getting emails from friends with maudlin stories about how the whole world is turning out with Stars and Stripes awaving to honor our military dead from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why? Because the moral of those stories seems to be "aren't we so wonderful for the way we support the troops!" and to my way of thinking, that is NOT how best to support them.
You want to support the troops? Don't sit around and forward emails and wave your flag and say you are supporting our troops.
Rather, press Congress and especially the President to make sure those troops have enough of the proper equipment and supplies to do the jobs given them; make sure their pay and benefits are not cut to the bone behind their backs; give of your time and energy to the families left behind by baby sitting, sharing a meal, or running some errands; and make sure all our elected representatives know that we won't put up with them talking a good game--we want substance, not style.
Why? Because the moral of those stories seems to be "aren't we so wonderful for the way we support the troops!" and to my way of thinking, that is NOT how best to support them.
You want to support the troops? Don't sit around and forward emails and wave your flag and say you are supporting our troops.
Rather, press Congress and especially the President to make sure those troops have enough of the proper equipment and supplies to do the jobs given them; make sure their pay and benefits are not cut to the bone behind their backs; give of your time and energy to the families left behind by baby sitting, sharing a meal, or running some errands; and make sure all our elected representatives know that we won't put up with them talking a good game--we want substance, not style.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Did You Miss Me?
Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything. Not because I haven't had anything to say . . . quite the contrary. I am so overwhelmed by all the things rattling around in my brain that I am having trouble sorting them out to make a sensible, readable post. Nevertheless, I will now attempt to clear out the clutter and comment on Life, the Universe, and Everything . . . or at least, the NCAA, the hurricane aftermath, and the nature of history.
But first, an aside: I believe there is a great cosmic significance in the close time proximity of the deaths of Bob Denver and William Rehnquist. What that significance is, however, I do not want to know.
On the NCAA
The NCAA, in its non-infinite wisdom, recently issued an edict forbidding schools in any NCAA playoffs to use mascots or nicknames that are stereotypes or otherwise offensive. Read: you can't use any Native American symbols/names/themes.
Several schools, most prominently among them Florida State, protested. After all, Florida State's nickname, the Seminoles, and its mascot, Osceola, have been carefully constructed with the help of Florida's Seminole population not to be stereotypical, but to be accurate and positive images. Since Florida's Seminole population largely agreed with Florida State, the NCAA relented and gave Florida State a waiver from its new policy.
And that is as it should be. If we are outlawing stereotypes, accurate and positive portrayals are by definition exempt. Besides, what's the point of banning the use of such stereotypes only during NCAA playoffs? If the stereotype is offensive, it's offensive 100% of the time. [You want to get rid of an offensive nickname? Make the Washington DC NFL team change its name. "Redskins" is offensive, period. After all, you wouldn't call a team the N*****s, now would you?--Ed.]
I, for one, might be happy to see the NCAA ban the use of the "Fighting Irish" leprechaun at Notre Dame. The belligerent little fellow w/ his fists and his shillelagh is not my idea of an accurate and positive image at all. On the other hand, I feel about it not unlike how Whoopi Goldberg feels about bad ethnic stereotypes in old advertising and the like. She collects examples of such stereotyping to keep everyone's memories alive as to how bad it was, to show how far we've come, and to acknowledge that history cannot be changed to make it pretty. It is what it is.
The Hurricane Aftermath
First, let me say I am glad to see that the vaunted generosity of the American public deserves its reputation. The outpouring of help and support so far has been enormous, as it should be. And it extends not just to the people devastated by Katrina, but also to their pets. The Humane Society is making huge efforts to find and rescue pets lost to their families because of the storm, and to give them necessary medical treatment and to try to reunite them with their humans.
I am particularly pleased about that because I believe that since pets cannot speak for themselves, if we do not care for them, we reveal ourselves as lesser beings by our indifference.
I guess it's part and parcel of the notion that how great a society is becomes plain when examining how that society treates the least of its members. By that standard, the federal government has failed miserably along the Gulf Coast.
A right-wing friend (yes, I have them; it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Besides, we all have more in common than some of us might be willing to admit) sent me a email positing that the reason for all the looting and violence in New Orleans was because the welfare state has created a permanent underclass that acts and reacts more like Iraqi insurgents than like human beings trying to cope with a crisis.
I knew at some fundamental level that that was just wrong. It not only blames the victim, it smacks of racism. But not until this morning did I realize WHY that reasoning was wrong: the looting and violence did not start until AFTER it was clear that the federal government and just about everyone else was blowing off helping these people. It is akin to the news photos of white people and black people in the aftermath of the storm: white people were said to be finding food; blacks, on the other hand, were said to be looting.
Do not get me wrong. I know there is truth to the looting reports. But it started only after several days of federal inaction had passed. If the National Guard had been put in place right away, as it would have been had, say, Kennebunkport been devastated by a hurricane, the total breakdown of the social compact that we saw would not have happened.
And why weren't National Guard troops put in place right away? Because most of them were off fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why did the flooding happen in the first place? Because the budget for levee maintenance had been siphoned off to finance the so-called war on terror.
I heard in an NPR report this morning that Republicans are saying that there was more than enough money given to infrastructure maintenance in Louisiana even though the money spent was less than 1/3 of what the Army Corps of Engineers said it needed. Why was it more than enough money? According to one of the Republican Congressmen who made the decision, Louisiana got $.4 billion more than California, and "California has 7 times the population."
What's wrong with this picture? You don't base infrastructure spending on the size of the population most immediately affected. You base it on the need. I daresay that Louisiana has at least 7 times the risk of flooding from hurricanes as does California.
The congressman in question also implied that the money that WAS given was not all spent where it was supposed to be used (remember, Louisiana still has a lot of Democrats in official positions in high places, like the governorship).
But there's no sense in finger-pointing and making accusations against the Bush administration's inadequacies, because we have a job to do, and we cannot afford to be divisive when there is so much work to be done.
Talk about "Things That Make You Go Wha?!?!?!"
We are not all incapable of multitasking. Furthermore, we need to assess what went wrong, why, and who is responsible, so that we can keep it from happening again. If we wait until the clean-up is done and everything is back to normal, two things will happen: (1) no one will care any longer. Americans do have notoriously short attention spans; and (2) those who should be held accountable will get off scotfree.
And that tain't right, Magee.
It is not impossible to examine what happened and make corrections and assign blame where needed while at the same time working to help those whose lives have been demolished by the storm. And I don't mean poor Trent Lott and his "beautiful house" that was destroyed by the storm--you know, the one Dubya is going to help him rebuild so that he and Lott can sit on the porch together. It's not exactly as if Lott has no other home to go to, and no job because the storm wiped out his place of employment, and no other income or resources on which to draw.
The Emperor is still naked. It's long, long past the time we faced up to that and dealt with it.
The Nature of History
I've been discussing with a friend what is the nature of history. Humans have an inborn need to organize and categorize things, and the way we choose to organize our history reveals much about ourselves.
(OK, I should say most humans have a need to organize. One of my best friends rightly says his desk is "The Black Hole of Calcutta." I cannot work in such clutter and chaos; it seems to short-circuit my brain cells, and I literally cannot think amongst such a mess. He, on the other hand, thrives on it. Chacun a son gout.)
The Victorians gave us the notion of history as inevitable progress. This notion was majorly discredited in the wake of things like the sinking of the HMS Titanic and the publishing of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but its echoes can still be heard, especially in elementary and high school history textbooks.
Some believe that history is a cyclical thing: "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Just compare the attitude of those in power in the federal government now with that of those in power in the 1890s if you doubt it. Others think history moves like a pendulum: every generation reacts against its parents, so the 60s begat the 80s, 90s, and 00s (think "Family Ties" and Alex P. Keaton), and with any luck, the 80s, 90s, and 00s will beget a revival of the best attitudes of the 60s somehere down the road. (And I'm not talking Lava Lamps, people.)
My own take is that aspects of all these things are true, as long as one is able to add a pinch of irony. Lincoln wanted a "soft" Reconstruction of the Union, but his assassination made that impossible-yet his assassin's goal and aim (pun intended) in killing Lincoln was to help and protect the South. JFK wanted civil rights legislation, but didn't push hard for it, and it wasn't going to pass even if he had--until he was assassinated, that is.
I don't know. Maybe history is on an ever-downward spiral. (I cite the existence of Gangsta Rap in support.) No, I don't seriously believe that. But I do believe (as the two examples in the previous paragraph attest) that history has a large measure of "be careful what you ask for, for you just might get it" kind of a "gotcha" karma to it. Part of me wonders why we have to put any characterizations on history at all, but the better part of me knows that human nature makes it inevitable that we do so.
Here endeth the lesson.
But first, an aside: I believe there is a great cosmic significance in the close time proximity of the deaths of Bob Denver and William Rehnquist. What that significance is, however, I do not want to know.
On the NCAA
The NCAA, in its non-infinite wisdom, recently issued an edict forbidding schools in any NCAA playoffs to use mascots or nicknames that are stereotypes or otherwise offensive. Read: you can't use any Native American symbols/names/themes.
Several schools, most prominently among them Florida State, protested. After all, Florida State's nickname, the Seminoles, and its mascot, Osceola, have been carefully constructed with the help of Florida's Seminole population not to be stereotypical, but to be accurate and positive images. Since Florida's Seminole population largely agreed with Florida State, the NCAA relented and gave Florida State a waiver from its new policy.
And that is as it should be. If we are outlawing stereotypes, accurate and positive portrayals are by definition exempt. Besides, what's the point of banning the use of such stereotypes only during NCAA playoffs? If the stereotype is offensive, it's offensive 100% of the time. [You want to get rid of an offensive nickname? Make the Washington DC NFL team change its name. "Redskins" is offensive, period. After all, you wouldn't call a team the N*****s, now would you?--Ed.]
I, for one, might be happy to see the NCAA ban the use of the "Fighting Irish" leprechaun at Notre Dame. The belligerent little fellow w/ his fists and his shillelagh is not my idea of an accurate and positive image at all. On the other hand, I feel about it not unlike how Whoopi Goldberg feels about bad ethnic stereotypes in old advertising and the like. She collects examples of such stereotyping to keep everyone's memories alive as to how bad it was, to show how far we've come, and to acknowledge that history cannot be changed to make it pretty. It is what it is.
The Hurricane Aftermath
First, let me say I am glad to see that the vaunted generosity of the American public deserves its reputation. The outpouring of help and support so far has been enormous, as it should be. And it extends not just to the people devastated by Katrina, but also to their pets. The Humane Society is making huge efforts to find and rescue pets lost to their families because of the storm, and to give them necessary medical treatment and to try to reunite them with their humans.
I am particularly pleased about that because I believe that since pets cannot speak for themselves, if we do not care for them, we reveal ourselves as lesser beings by our indifference.
I guess it's part and parcel of the notion that how great a society is becomes plain when examining how that society treates the least of its members. By that standard, the federal government has failed miserably along the Gulf Coast.
A right-wing friend (yes, I have them; it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Besides, we all have more in common than some of us might be willing to admit) sent me a email positing that the reason for all the looting and violence in New Orleans was because the welfare state has created a permanent underclass that acts and reacts more like Iraqi insurgents than like human beings trying to cope with a crisis.
I knew at some fundamental level that that was just wrong. It not only blames the victim, it smacks of racism. But not until this morning did I realize WHY that reasoning was wrong: the looting and violence did not start until AFTER it was clear that the federal government and just about everyone else was blowing off helping these people. It is akin to the news photos of white people and black people in the aftermath of the storm: white people were said to be finding food; blacks, on the other hand, were said to be looting.
Do not get me wrong. I know there is truth to the looting reports. But it started only after several days of federal inaction had passed. If the National Guard had been put in place right away, as it would have been had, say, Kennebunkport been devastated by a hurricane, the total breakdown of the social compact that we saw would not have happened.
And why weren't National Guard troops put in place right away? Because most of them were off fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why did the flooding happen in the first place? Because the budget for levee maintenance had been siphoned off to finance the so-called war on terror.
I heard in an NPR report this morning that Republicans are saying that there was more than enough money given to infrastructure maintenance in Louisiana even though the money spent was less than 1/3 of what the Army Corps of Engineers said it needed. Why was it more than enough money? According to one of the Republican Congressmen who made the decision, Louisiana got $.4 billion more than California, and "California has 7 times the population."
What's wrong with this picture? You don't base infrastructure spending on the size of the population most immediately affected. You base it on the need. I daresay that Louisiana has at least 7 times the risk of flooding from hurricanes as does California.
The congressman in question also implied that the money that WAS given was not all spent where it was supposed to be used (remember, Louisiana still has a lot of Democrats in official positions in high places, like the governorship).
But there's no sense in finger-pointing and making accusations against the Bush administration's inadequacies, because we have a job to do, and we cannot afford to be divisive when there is so much work to be done.
Talk about "Things That Make You Go Wha?!?!?!"
We are not all incapable of multitasking. Furthermore, we need to assess what went wrong, why, and who is responsible, so that we can keep it from happening again. If we wait until the clean-up is done and everything is back to normal, two things will happen: (1) no one will care any longer. Americans do have notoriously short attention spans; and (2) those who should be held accountable will get off scotfree.
And that tain't right, Magee.
It is not impossible to examine what happened and make corrections and assign blame where needed while at the same time working to help those whose lives have been demolished by the storm. And I don't mean poor Trent Lott and his "beautiful house" that was destroyed by the storm--you know, the one Dubya is going to help him rebuild so that he and Lott can sit on the porch together. It's not exactly as if Lott has no other home to go to, and no job because the storm wiped out his place of employment, and no other income or resources on which to draw.
The Emperor is still naked. It's long, long past the time we faced up to that and dealt with it.
The Nature of History
I've been discussing with a friend what is the nature of history. Humans have an inborn need to organize and categorize things, and the way we choose to organize our history reveals much about ourselves.
(OK, I should say most humans have a need to organize. One of my best friends rightly says his desk is "The Black Hole of Calcutta." I cannot work in such clutter and chaos; it seems to short-circuit my brain cells, and I literally cannot think amongst such a mess. He, on the other hand, thrives on it. Chacun a son gout.)
The Victorians gave us the notion of history as inevitable progress. This notion was majorly discredited in the wake of things like the sinking of the HMS Titanic and the publishing of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but its echoes can still be heard, especially in elementary and high school history textbooks.
Some believe that history is a cyclical thing: "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Just compare the attitude of those in power in the federal government now with that of those in power in the 1890s if you doubt it. Others think history moves like a pendulum: every generation reacts against its parents, so the 60s begat the 80s, 90s, and 00s (think "Family Ties" and Alex P. Keaton), and with any luck, the 80s, 90s, and 00s will beget a revival of the best attitudes of the 60s somehere down the road. (And I'm not talking Lava Lamps, people.)
My own take is that aspects of all these things are true, as long as one is able to add a pinch of irony. Lincoln wanted a "soft" Reconstruction of the Union, but his assassination made that impossible-yet his assassin's goal and aim (pun intended) in killing Lincoln was to help and protect the South. JFK wanted civil rights legislation, but didn't push hard for it, and it wasn't going to pass even if he had--until he was assassinated, that is.
I don't know. Maybe history is on an ever-downward spiral. (I cite the existence of Gangsta Rap in support.) No, I don't seriously believe that. But I do believe (as the two examples in the previous paragraph attest) that history has a large measure of "be careful what you ask for, for you just might get it" kind of a "gotcha" karma to it. Part of me wonders why we have to put any characterizations on history at all, but the better part of me knows that human nature makes it inevitable that we do so.
Here endeth the lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)