Frank,
Winner has to buy the loser a fresh copy of Al Franken’s “Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot.”
From:
Subject: [From the Mountaintop] 10/09/2005 06:56:30
Good for you, Terry. Want to race? :)
--
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Re: Splish, Splash
Friday, October 07, 2005
Us vs. the Caliphate
President Bush sought Thursday to revive waning public support for the war in Iraq, accusing militants of seeking to establish a "radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia" with Iraq serving as the main front. Islamic radicals are being sheltered by "allies of convenience like
------------------------------
Yeah.
He’s so -cute- when he says stuff like this!
Let’s see, there’s one country in the Mideast run by theocrats relatively hostile to us,
Yes, Saladin is rising again. Saladin was a Kurd like … our closest allies in
Seems to me as if the Jihad has to fit a lot of Arabs and Muslims before they can even think about taking us on. So where’s this “Islamic empire” going to take place?
In the minds of the president’s more simplistic supporters, who love the idea of modern Crusaders defending the cross against the infidels. Godless communism has thrown in the towel. You can’t holler about them any more. There’s no point looking under lefty Aunt Rosa’s bed for them anymore. So what’s a godly warrior to do?
Why, find other zealots willing and able to play the game, that’s what. People who worship the –wrong- God (although a deity who offers a paradise full of willing women can’t be all bad.) People who, unlike Commies who could look just like me or you, are different. Brown usually, with funny clothes. People you certainly don’t see in
The Islamic terrorists are no threat to the continued existence of the
A lot of the attraction, in my opinion, is built in the relatively vague aims of the jihad movement. There’s no twenty point plan for the brave new world. There’s just the Koran as they see it, and the promise of a happy life. In this sense it’s similar to the Nazis, who were also vague and drew people in because they promised action and a better life, not a debating society.
This isn’t a class of civilizations, or of religions. It’s growing pains. What we have called the
The answer is to continue to push for democratic and economic development, but allow the locals to set the pace and the agenda. One of the remarkable lessons of Iran is that when people seize control of their own destiny, they’re a lot more likely to make progressive choices than when it’s imposed on them (hence our struggle in Iraq). As one Iranian political leader said recently, “Time is on our side. After all, it took the West hundreds of years to get where it is. We’ve just had twenty.” Our best weapon against the jihadists over time is patience, and a gentle nudge from time to time.
Now will someone please tell our president? He’s just making himself look silly otherwise. Next thing you know, he'll be dressing himself up like Richard the Lionhearted. It's embarrassing.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Splish, Splash
It’s been a busy month. I’ve been organizing a Walk to School Week for my son’s school. I went to grade school in
But the really tiring thing has been learning how to swim. Yep, at the ripe old age of 47 I’ve finally learned how to boogie across the pool.
Part of it is long-deferred desire. A lot more is having a second-grader son who was splashing water on me in the pool and then paddling to the other side, laughing. Oh, such fun it was when I shot back after him a couple of weeks ago!! He liked it. He’s now got Daddy as pool buddy in addition to playground buddy, ballgame buddy and hide-and-seek buddy.
Perhaps the biggest incentive was fear of not being able to hop into the pool or river and save my son’s life without risking my own. That was the motivator of motivators.
So now that I know how, I feel stupid for all the years I didn’t. I literally learned within a week. On Monday I would sink to the bottom of the pool. By Friday I could scoot across with little difficulty. (Gotta watch the feet, keep ‘em –straight-!) In the past, I tried to learn it on the cheap. I took a college course, and then last year a Parks and Rec course. In both cases, it was “hold on to the side and kick.” Did nothing.
Grown-ups who can’t swim have two stunning fears. One is sinking, of not feeling solid surface under our feet. The other is dunking our head under the water. Seems, like, -dangerous- or something. That’s why my momma wouldn’t let me learn when I was a kid. I wanted to go to the local pool and learn. No, she said, you can’t get in the pool because you don’t know how to swim. Gee, Ma, I think I need to do that to –learn- how to swim. Momma never learned to swim herself and was absolutely terrified of drowning. So I didn’t learn.
(San Francisco high school graduation requirements at the time included knowing how to swim. My swim class teacher couldn’t believe I didn’t already know how and told me to stand by the pool until she could figure out what to do with me. After a couple of days of this, I skipped class and spent the time reading the Foundation and Empire sci-fi trilogy.)
My son could swim when he was five. He’s always loved water and my wife is a good swimmer, so he learned by watching and doing at an age when he doesn’t overthink it all.
So, on a lark as I passed by a local swim school in August, I stopped, and signed up for professional lessons.
I hate spending money for nothing, so I knew that if I paid cash money, I’d learn. I also needed –individual- lessons. I needed someone to sit there, push me, direct me and get my head under water.
It worked. Now, I love swimming. It’s fantastic exercise. It’s a social thang, especially here in toasty summered
The oddest part has been the lukewarm congratulations of the grown folks around me. It’s been, “oh, that’s nice …”. I was expecting huzzahs and backslaps. But I guess when you’re finally learned something a lot of second graders can do, it’s really much of a victory. But I’ll declare victory anyway. It was my war, so if I say I’ve won, I’ve won. So there.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Po' Folks
The question of the hour right after Katrina hit was, “Why didn’t they (po’ folks) just leave?” The silly people, a.k.a. conservative commentators, said it was because they’ve been all welfared out and just expect the govt to take care of them. Makes sense. Why ask local, state and federal disaster officials to have a good plan and put it into action when needed? I guess if we do that, then the terrorists win. I dunno.
Anyway, it’s not as easy for poor folks to jump up and leave as it is for the more bourgeois among us. For one, they have no money.
Not just from being poor. From living in a cash economy. Most of the folks who read blogs on the Internet have debit and credit cards in their pockets. They can pick up, go a hundred miles and have the same access to cash and credit as if they were down at the local strip mall. Poorer folks don’t have that luxury. There are precious few banks on the other side of the tracks. From my experience working in the East Oakland ‘hood for a time, whole generations come and go with only the thinnest idea of what a checking and savings account are, and offer. Paychecks are cashed at local stores or check chasing outlets, where one can usually pay utilities too. The rest goes in the pocket to pay for groceries and household needs.
There is also a huge underground cash economy, from casual labor to hair care to babysitting. Leave and you potentially leave this behind.
So the choice is: leave, and find yourself in a strange place without dime one, or, stay, and run the risk of damage and injury but at stay close to the resource base you know. Being reasonable people, many chose the latter. Is it surprising?
Anyway, it’s not as easy for poor folks to jump up and leave as it is for the more bourgeois among us. For one, they have no money.
Not just from being poor. From living in a cash economy. Most of the folks who read blogs on the Internet have debit and credit cards in their pockets. They can pick up, go a hundred miles and have the same access to cash and credit as if they were down at the local strip mall. Poorer folks don’t have that luxury. There are precious few banks on the other side of the tracks. From my experience working in the East Oakland ‘hood for a time, whole generations come and go with only the thinnest idea of what a checking and savings account are, and offer. Paychecks are cashed at local stores or check chasing outlets, where one can usually pay utilities too. The rest goes in the pocket to pay for groceries and household needs.
There is also a huge underground cash economy, from casual labor to hair care to babysitting. Leave and you potentially leave this behind.
So the choice is: leave, and find yourself in a strange place without dime one, or, stay, and run the risk of damage and injury but at stay close to the resource base you know. Being reasonable people, many chose the latter. Is it surprising?
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Spin City
One of most interesting things I've read recently is a missive by conservative iconoclast Paul Weyrich on why he supports public transit.
It's an odd thing to see at first. Public transit is supposed to be the darling of kill-your-car hairy legged tree huggers. Car travel represent the American Dream, the thrill of independence and individuality, rock-solid conservatives values. So what's a conservative doing supporting public transit?
Morals, is the answer. Back in the Goode Olde Dayes, Weyrich says, people behaved themselves because they worried about what others might think. Pre-marital sex and pregnancy? For shame! Going to the prom with someone of the same sex? What will the neighbors think? Lyin', stealin', cheatin' at cards, one just couldn't live it down. Our obsession with car travel has moved us away from all that, he says. We jump in cars in garages attached to our homes and drive off without ever seeing or talking to a neighbor. As a result, the social brakes on what he considers to be immoral behavior is lost.
Progressives talk a lot about lost community. You find a lot in urban areas because they like walking on the street on sunny days and warm evenings, and sidewalk cafes. Our community design and subsidization of car travel takes us away from that. Weyrich agrees.
Democrats' biggest frustration is that polls show that most Americans agree with them on many issues. So why doesn't that translate into more success at the polls? Because the GOP is simply better at "framing" the issues.
Dems and liberals are generally wonks, people who think and speak in terms of fourteen point position papers, not broad strokes and definitions. "I believe in God, family and country!!" (implying the opposition doesn't), says the GOP apparatchik. Dem candidates and electeds sputter that they like those too, and that they, well, just sorta believe that, you know, schools are good too. No matter what plan comes after, the argument's already been lost. They get in first and define the question, and Dems have been terrible at either redefining or getting there first themselves.
But the times may be changing. I think we're seeing some of it at work with the Roberts nomination.
Roberts is a good nominee. I'd naturally prefer someone with a nice liberal bent but so far I haven't heard anything which justifies keeping him off the court. He's said the right things about the right to privacy, while still holding enough conservative credentials to keep the nutcases happy, enough. I think this is due to the "nuclear option" accord some months ago. It forced the Bush administration to find and nominate a relatively reasonable candidate. And that came about because Senate Dems, normally the most moderate of the party's electeds, wisely framed the issue.
According to an interesting article, the Dems found that accusing the GOP of trying to push a rightwing agenda didn't fare well as an argument against Frist's threat to end the filibuster. People expect legislators to work for their political ends, big deal.
What they didn't like was changing long-standing and time-honored constitutional rules. It framed the GOP as the crazy radicals and the Dems as the defenders of truth, justice and the American Way. The GOP settled for a draw, and the Roberts nomination resulted.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina offers Democrats another chance to reshape a clearly flawed policy, if the problem is correctly defined. Stay tuned.
It's an odd thing to see at first. Public transit is supposed to be the darling of kill-your-car hairy legged tree huggers. Car travel represent the American Dream, the thrill of independence and individuality, rock-solid conservatives values. So what's a conservative doing supporting public transit?
Morals, is the answer. Back in the Goode Olde Dayes, Weyrich says, people behaved themselves because they worried about what others might think. Pre-marital sex and pregnancy? For shame! Going to the prom with someone of the same sex? What will the neighbors think? Lyin', stealin', cheatin' at cards, one just couldn't live it down. Our obsession with car travel has moved us away from all that, he says. We jump in cars in garages attached to our homes and drive off without ever seeing or talking to a neighbor. As a result, the social brakes on what he considers to be immoral behavior is lost.
Progressives talk a lot about lost community. You find a lot in urban areas because they like walking on the street on sunny days and warm evenings, and sidewalk cafes. Our community design and subsidization of car travel takes us away from that. Weyrich agrees.
Democrats' biggest frustration is that polls show that most Americans agree with them on many issues. So why doesn't that translate into more success at the polls? Because the GOP is simply better at "framing" the issues.
Dems and liberals are generally wonks, people who think and speak in terms of fourteen point position papers, not broad strokes and definitions. "I believe in God, family and country!!" (implying the opposition doesn't), says the GOP apparatchik. Dem candidates and electeds sputter that they like those too, and that they, well, just sorta believe that, you know, schools are good too. No matter what plan comes after, the argument's already been lost. They get in first and define the question, and Dems have been terrible at either redefining or getting there first themselves.
But the times may be changing. I think we're seeing some of it at work with the Roberts nomination.
Roberts is a good nominee. I'd naturally prefer someone with a nice liberal bent but so far I haven't heard anything which justifies keeping him off the court. He's said the right things about the right to privacy, while still holding enough conservative credentials to keep the nutcases happy, enough. I think this is due to the "nuclear option" accord some months ago. It forced the Bush administration to find and nominate a relatively reasonable candidate. And that came about because Senate Dems, normally the most moderate of the party's electeds, wisely framed the issue.
According to an interesting article, the Dems found that accusing the GOP of trying to push a rightwing agenda didn't fare well as an argument against Frist's threat to end the filibuster. People expect legislators to work for their political ends, big deal.
What they didn't like was changing long-standing and time-honored constitutional rules. It framed the GOP as the crazy radicals and the Dems as the defenders of truth, justice and the American Way. The GOP settled for a draw, and the Roberts nomination resulted.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina offers Democrats another chance to reshape a clearly flawed policy, if the problem is correctly defined. Stay tuned.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Labor Day
Ran into an interesting piece in, of all places, USA Today. It described how the labor movement is changing tactics to fight off Wal-Mart anti-unionization and help workers gain a better life.
Instead of going through the long battle for union certification and the rest, they're organizing worker "associations", simply voluntary groups which allow workers to meet, plan and lobby for better pay and working conditions. By casting themselves as consultants as well as organizers, the movement can do a lot more for workers with less.
The American labor movement has never been the equal of its European counterparts. It's never been able to organize anything close to a Labor Party. A lot of this is due to the nature of the American worker and society.
Every Saturday night as a kid I'd take my bath, then turn on the "Flintstones", a nice cartoon blend of "The Honeymooners" and "The Life of Reilly." Fred was a blue-collar guy, moving rocks for a living. But he lived a middle class life. His wife didn't work and loved her credit cards, and Fred pulled into a nice bungalow with garage at the end of every work day. This was and is the image of the workingman (and woman). It's a pretty bourgeois life.
As a result, the American worker has generally considered himself or herself one of the owning class. This has been propelled by the fact that workers nowadays often own and direct part of their own retirement plans through 401(k)'s and the life, and the shift away from manufacturing to office work, even for the grunts. Son and daughter at the tech firm may earn proportionately less than Dad did at the car plant, but they wear business clothes to work, can manage their portfolio from their desk over lunch and don't have to get their hands dirty at work. They think they're even better off.
So the challenge for the labor movement is to recast itself from class warriors to business consultants. It isn't the shop floor vs. the big office. It's working on behalf of your retirement investments, your health coverage and leave policy, as a matter of business. No more firebreathing union meetings. You want a better deal? Get some of the officemates together and we'll meet after work. After all, with no health care policy to rely on, Social Security under fire and the high cost of a tank of gas, you gotta know where and how to cut the best deal with your boss. And labor is here to help.
Instead of going through the long battle for union certification and the rest, they're organizing worker "associations", simply voluntary groups which allow workers to meet, plan and lobby for better pay and working conditions. By casting themselves as consultants as well as organizers, the movement can do a lot more for workers with less.
The American labor movement has never been the equal of its European counterparts. It's never been able to organize anything close to a Labor Party. A lot of this is due to the nature of the American worker and society.
Every Saturday night as a kid I'd take my bath, then turn on the "Flintstones", a nice cartoon blend of "The Honeymooners" and "The Life of Reilly." Fred was a blue-collar guy, moving rocks for a living. But he lived a middle class life. His wife didn't work and loved her credit cards, and Fred pulled into a nice bungalow with garage at the end of every work day. This was and is the image of the workingman (and woman). It's a pretty bourgeois life.
As a result, the American worker has generally considered himself or herself one of the owning class. This has been propelled by the fact that workers nowadays often own and direct part of their own retirement plans through 401(k)'s and the life, and the shift away from manufacturing to office work, even for the grunts. Son and daughter at the tech firm may earn proportionately less than Dad did at the car plant, but they wear business clothes to work, can manage their portfolio from their desk over lunch and don't have to get their hands dirty at work. They think they're even better off.
So the challenge for the labor movement is to recast itself from class warriors to business consultants. It isn't the shop floor vs. the big office. It's working on behalf of your retirement investments, your health coverage and leave policy, as a matter of business. No more firebreathing union meetings. You want a better deal? Get some of the officemates together and we'll meet after work. After all, with no health care policy to rely on, Social Security under fire and the high cost of a tank of gas, you gotta know where and how to cut the best deal with your boss. And labor is here to help.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Welfare Reform = Socialized Medicine
Again, one of my favorite themes in politics is the unintended consequence.
It turns out that Medicaid is being turned into the nation's health care safety net for the working poor as a conscious effort to help folks stay off the welfare rolls.
The full story here:
It makes sense, and amazingly, the Republicans have been both practical and thoughtful. As one said, "The original sin of social policy was tying Medicaid directly to welfare. Now, it's tied to working." In short, it's a needed net for people who are already at the tipping point regarding work and paying the bills.
Of course, the GOP can't take credit for it because they're trapped in their antediluvian mindset that anything from the government is tainted beyond belief, so I will hereby crow that the Democrats are completely responsible for this bold and far-sighted initiative and dare the GOP to disagree.
Many have written and said that the answer to the uncovered was just expand Medicare. Why reinvent the wheel when we've already got the system and the business model in place.
Thanks again, to our great and glorious former President Clinton, who succeeded in ending "welfare as we know it." He'd have known how to handle the New Orleans flood. After all, Louisiana voted for him.
It turns out that Medicaid is being turned into the nation's health care safety net for the working poor as a conscious effort to help folks stay off the welfare rolls.
The full story here:
It makes sense, and amazingly, the Republicans have been both practical and thoughtful. As one said, "The original sin of social policy was tying Medicaid directly to welfare. Now, it's tied to working." In short, it's a needed net for people who are already at the tipping point regarding work and paying the bills.
Of course, the GOP can't take credit for it because they're trapped in their antediluvian mindset that anything from the government is tainted beyond belief, so I will hereby crow that the Democrats are completely responsible for this bold and far-sighted initiative and dare the GOP to disagree.
Many have written and said that the answer to the uncovered was just expand Medicare. Why reinvent the wheel when we've already got the system and the business model in place.
Thanks again, to our great and glorious former President Clinton, who succeeded in ending "welfare as we know it." He'd have known how to handle the New Orleans flood. After all, Louisiana voted for him.
Print vs. Video
Like most people, I've been glued to the new media for updates on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Unlike a lot of people, most of this was radio, print and Internet reporting. I missed the teevee coverage.
So I was pretty surprised to find that the "big" story for several days on teevee was the looting of what remains of New Orleans. Young Negroes scurrying around with items which didn't originally belong to them, acting like, well, like most young men in the aftermath of a disaster. This seemed to be the dominant theme for a couple of days. Teevee viewers shook their heads, tut-tutted and said to themselves, "They don't make much of a case for helping them. Where's the charity, the neighborliness, the warm, fuzzy stories of people helping people we need in these times?"
They were all over the print, radio and Internet. I read them and was amazed at how many children seemed to rise to the occasion. One story told of a boy who pulled his family members who couldn't swim to safety as the house was flooded. Another told of a six-year-old boy who had six or seven smaller children in tow, leading them to safety without adult supervision. These stories were all over print, radio and Internet sources.
Someone once said they preferred radio over television because the pictures were better. With teevee, you need immediacy. You need, "here's a picture of what's happening now" to make it sell. But rescue stories generally come out well after they're reported. They read well, but they don't look good enough, often a static interview, which just can't compare to the naked visual of people running rampant.
Radio and print, in comparison, can draw complex pictures, and tie together disparate images. They can tell more, and in more varied ways. That's where the news is. But in times of trouble, the tendency is to run to the tube and see what's happening, even though it really isn't. We feel more connected when we see pictures. But it's not the news.
So middle America ends up with this weird distorted vision of what really happened in and around New Orleans. Eventually, the whole truth will come out. Fortunately, there's NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, New Orleans Times-Picayune and the rest of the real media to tell the tale.
So I was pretty surprised to find that the "big" story for several days on teevee was the looting of what remains of New Orleans. Young Negroes scurrying around with items which didn't originally belong to them, acting like, well, like most young men in the aftermath of a disaster. This seemed to be the dominant theme for a couple of days. Teevee viewers shook their heads, tut-tutted and said to themselves, "They don't make much of a case for helping them. Where's the charity, the neighborliness, the warm, fuzzy stories of people helping people we need in these times?"
They were all over the print, radio and Internet. I read them and was amazed at how many children seemed to rise to the occasion. One story told of a boy who pulled his family members who couldn't swim to safety as the house was flooded. Another told of a six-year-old boy who had six or seven smaller children in tow, leading them to safety without adult supervision. These stories were all over print, radio and Internet sources.
Someone once said they preferred radio over television because the pictures were better. With teevee, you need immediacy. You need, "here's a picture of what's happening now" to make it sell. But rescue stories generally come out well after they're reported. They read well, but they don't look good enough, often a static interview, which just can't compare to the naked visual of people running rampant.
Radio and print, in comparison, can draw complex pictures, and tie together disparate images. They can tell more, and in more varied ways. That's where the news is. But in times of trouble, the tendency is to run to the tube and see what's happening, even though it really isn't. We feel more connected when we see pictures. But it's not the news.
So middle America ends up with this weird distorted vision of what really happened in and around New Orleans. Eventually, the whole truth will come out. Fortunately, there's NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, New Orleans Times-Picayune and the rest of the real media to tell the tale.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Big (Not So) Easy
Anonymous said...
I've perused your site and seem to have a similar opinion of most topics...but, having grown up on the Texas coast, I supposed I have a different point of view about living in hurrican alley versus the earthquake zone. Both frighten me...have done for my 51 years. Having dealt with one devasting hurricane as a high schooler, I now know that I would high-tail it out of town if I lived anywhere near a prospective strike point for a hurricane. Not sure just how to do that for an earthquake. Would enjoy your comments about my blog, www.musingsfrommyopia.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------
Like your blog. Interesting comments about New Orleans, whether it never should have been built there in the first place. I've been to the Big Easy, and there's definitely something weird about walking uphill to see a riverbank.
Still, people and particularly Americans are a hard-headed and persistent bunch. I suspect the city and surrounding area will be rebuilt simply to prove the point to Mother Nature.
It seems so sudden. After a seemingly endless line of hurricanes earlier in the year, this one seemed a yawner until it hit land. I can't imagine being crushed by a wall of water.
I live in a former flood plain near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. I have flood insurance even though my lender didn't require it. I feel safe and secure behind the levees. My wife points to the CNN feed from the Gulf States and says, "aren't you glad we got the rider?"
Again, that's why I prefer earthquakes as my instrument of doom. They come, do their stuff and leave. You can also defend against them. When the '89 quake hit San Francisco, the only part of the city which failed was the neighborhood built on the mushy landfill from the 1915 World's Fair. The Oakland freeway fell for a similar reason. The big buildings stayed up, because they're designed to roll with the punches. I worked as a night watchman at a downtown construction dig during college and the architect showed me how he literally built the skyscraper to bounce and swap during a quake. You just can't do that with a hurricane. You're stuck.
I've perused your site and seem to have a similar opinion of most topics...but, having grown up on the Texas coast, I supposed I have a different point of view about living in hurrican alley versus the earthquake zone. Both frighten me...have done for my 51 years. Having dealt with one devasting hurricane as a high schooler, I now know that I would high-tail it out of town if I lived anywhere near a prospective strike point for a hurricane. Not sure just how to do that for an earthquake. Would enjoy your comments about my blog, www.musingsfrommyopia.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------
Like your blog. Interesting comments about New Orleans, whether it never should have been built there in the first place. I've been to the Big Easy, and there's definitely something weird about walking uphill to see a riverbank.
Still, people and particularly Americans are a hard-headed and persistent bunch. I suspect the city and surrounding area will be rebuilt simply to prove the point to Mother Nature.
It seems so sudden. After a seemingly endless line of hurricanes earlier in the year, this one seemed a yawner until it hit land. I can't imagine being crushed by a wall of water.
I live in a former flood plain near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. I have flood insurance even though my lender didn't require it. I feel safe and secure behind the levees. My wife points to the CNN feed from the Gulf States and says, "aren't you glad we got the rider?"
Again, that's why I prefer earthquakes as my instrument of doom. They come, do their stuff and leave. You can also defend against them. When the '89 quake hit San Francisco, the only part of the city which failed was the neighborhood built on the mushy landfill from the 1915 World's Fair. The Oakland freeway fell for a similar reason. The big buildings stayed up, because they're designed to roll with the punches. I worked as a night watchman at a downtown construction dig during college and the architect showed me how he literally built the skyscraper to bounce and swap during a quake. You just can't do that with a hurricane. You're stuck.
Thought for the Day
With thought to California's pointless special election, called by the Governator for this November, where recent polling finds that both of his key ballot proposals are supported by just over thirty percent of the voters.
-------------------------------------
"In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants."
- Lewis Black
-------------------------------------
"In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants."
- Lewis Black
The -True- Home of the Free
From a friend's story of his recent trip to British Columbia:
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian law enforcement is going after an American member of the Marijuana Party, at the behest of the U.S. Gum'mint. More information here.
"Well, what the Canadians are pissed most about is that their cops are busting Canadians at the behest of the U.S. DEA ...".
"We were nervous, but dressed just like Vancouverites (imagine a giant Berkeley). If pressed, we said that no, we weren't Americans, we were from California."
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian law enforcement is going after an American member of the Marijuana Party, at the behest of the U.S. Gum'mint. More information here.
"Well, what the Canadians are pissed most about is that their cops are busting Canadians at the behest of the U.S. DEA ...".
"We were nervous, but dressed just like Vancouverites (imagine a giant Berkeley). If pressed, we said that no, we weren't Americans, we were from California."
Monday, August 29, 2005
There's a Stiff Wind A' Blowin'
From today's New York Times:
"I'm afraid this is the one we've dreaded. I don't think the scenario could be any worse for us."ROBERT R. LATHAM JR., director of Emergency Management Operations for Mississippi.
-------------------------------
As a native Californian who travels to and talks to the rest of the country for business, I'm constantly asked, "How do you people live with those earthquakes?"
My answer, "How do you live with those hurricanes (and tornadoes)?"
Response, "But we can see them coming!"
Counter-response, "Doesn't seem to do much good."
In 47 years of living in California, most of it in the Bay Area, I've rolled through two major shakes and any number of minor ones. Ain't no big. You roll with, pardon the pun. Since you -don't- have warning, you don't worry about it.
I can't imagine anything scarier than seeing a big. black twister barrelling toward you, or the wind picking up more and more speed as the hurricane descends. That's a living horror movie, where the monster/crazed maniac slowly sneaks up on the helpless victim, who can do nothing but think about the dismemberment to come.
Hurricanes come early and late, and seemingly quite often. You have "hurricane" season. Ever hear of "earthquake" season? There ain't one. There ain't even an earthquake decade.
Who foots the bill to rebuild every mosquito infested "Red state" after its monthly attack by Hurricane Kickass? Why, the Blue staters, of course, through the generosity of our contributions to the federal government. Third World economies in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina certainly can't do it. Only the hard-working stiffs of the coastal and Northeastern states have that collective capability.
Perhaps we Blue staters should consider withholding our portion of the federal budget for this. After all, why should we subsidize their poor choice of where to live?
"I'm afraid this is the one we've dreaded. I don't think the scenario could be any worse for us."ROBERT R. LATHAM JR., director of Emergency Management Operations for Mississippi.
-------------------------------
As a native Californian who travels to and talks to the rest of the country for business, I'm constantly asked, "How do you people live with those earthquakes?"
My answer, "How do you live with those hurricanes (and tornadoes)?"
Response, "But we can see them coming!"
Counter-response, "Doesn't seem to do much good."
In 47 years of living in California, most of it in the Bay Area, I've rolled through two major shakes and any number of minor ones. Ain't no big. You roll with, pardon the pun. Since you -don't- have warning, you don't worry about it.
I can't imagine anything scarier than seeing a big. black twister barrelling toward you, or the wind picking up more and more speed as the hurricane descends. That's a living horror movie, where the monster/crazed maniac slowly sneaks up on the helpless victim, who can do nothing but think about the dismemberment to come.
Hurricanes come early and late, and seemingly quite often. You have "hurricane" season. Ever hear of "earthquake" season? There ain't one. There ain't even an earthquake decade.
Who foots the bill to rebuild every mosquito infested "Red state" after its monthly attack by Hurricane Kickass? Why, the Blue staters, of course, through the generosity of our contributions to the federal government. Third World economies in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina certainly can't do it. Only the hard-working stiffs of the coastal and Northeastern states have that collective capability.
Perhaps we Blue staters should consider withholding our portion of the federal budget for this. After all, why should we subsidize their poor choice of where to live?
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Failure -is- an option
Do a "Google" Web search on the word " Failure."
--------------------------
The second choice is perhaps the most misunderstood recent resident of the Big House. The third one is just there for political "cover thine ass" balance.
--------------------------
The second choice is perhaps the most misunderstood recent resident of the Big House. The third one is just there for political "cover thine ass" balance.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Roe vs. Wade meets Welfare Reform
One of the fun things about public policy are the unintended consequences we bring on ourselves.
Take abortion. For years, educated, professional women were the backbone of the pro-choice movement because they had the most to lose due to an unplanned pregnancy. When I was in college I knew several women who had terminated pregnancies (none due to me) because they had classes to attend, internships to accept, a future to build for. The female cadres of Operation Rescue yahoos were generally uneducated and less to lose through an unwanted pregnancy.
That's changed.
According to a recent report, the number of abortions performed has diminished considerably. That's good when it means that more men and women are using preventative measures, bad when it means there are no service providers about. In general, though, both sides agree that in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Of course, that can't happen, so we need reproductive choice.
What's interesting is that even though the numbers have gone down, who is getting abortions has changed. With the passage of welfare reform and back-to-work and all for welfare mothers, more working class and less educated women are terminating unwanted pregnancies. For the same reasons my college acquaintances did. An unwanted pregnancy throws a serious curve into life plans. If the government wants 'em working, they'll work, by God. And no unwanted pregnancy will stop them.
So we have to thank the Republicans who worked with President Clinton to bring more women into the workforce, off welfare. As a result, we have even fewer unwanted children, too.
Take abortion. For years, educated, professional women were the backbone of the pro-choice movement because they had the most to lose due to an unplanned pregnancy. When I was in college I knew several women who had terminated pregnancies (none due to me) because they had classes to attend, internships to accept, a future to build for. The female cadres of Operation Rescue yahoos were generally uneducated and less to lose through an unwanted pregnancy.
That's changed.
According to a recent report, the number of abortions performed has diminished considerably. That's good when it means that more men and women are using preventative measures, bad when it means there are no service providers about. In general, though, both sides agree that in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Of course, that can't happen, so we need reproductive choice.
What's interesting is that even though the numbers have gone down, who is getting abortions has changed. With the passage of welfare reform and back-to-work and all for welfare mothers, more working class and less educated women are terminating unwanted pregnancies. For the same reasons my college acquaintances did. An unwanted pregnancy throws a serious curve into life plans. If the government wants 'em working, they'll work, by God. And no unwanted pregnancy will stop them.
So we have to thank the Republicans who worked with President Clinton to bring more women into the workforce, off welfare. As a result, we have even fewer unwanted children, too.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Time vs. Newsweek on Darwin
Time magazine recently featured the evolution wars. At the same time, Newsweek highlighted new research into infants' minds. It's too bad no one wrote about the connection between the two.
People are social creatures. We can't help it. It's why we survived millions of years being chased by beats on the savanna, and how we managed to have mastodon burgers for dinner. One guy couldn't fight off a sabertooth tiger or bring down a hairy elephant, but a bunch could. And did. And those who did lived to pass on the tendency to their survivors.
So the first thing any babe needs to do to survive is locate and connect with their caregivers. Those who do this well survive. Those who don't, don't. So the trait survives in the species. Evolution at work.
This is really obvious when you see infants at work. My son didn't mind being held by others as a baby. As long as I or his momma or aunt were nearby. He'd look up at the stranger holding him, then look over to make sure a familiar face was nearby, and he was fine. Just insuring his defense, if needed. Again, evolution at work. Those babes who didn't keep the first line of defense on hand didn't survive, and didn't pass it on.
After a time, my son started to squirm and cry in the stranger's arms. "He misses his dad", they'd say. "No, he's sleepy", I said. "Just watch." Sure, within minutes of coming back to me, he was sound asleep. "How'd you know that?", they'd ask. "Simple. Sleeping is when a child is most vulnerable. He might sit in a stranger's arms and be fine, but he'd be durned if he was dozing off with someone who might not rise to the occasion if a saber-toothed tiger threatens him. He'd cry if he woke up from a nap and didn't see anyone. All I had to do to calm him would call from the next room, to let him know his parents were near. He'd stop and start cooing. Didn't need to see us, just know that we were near in case the hyenas came along. Again ...
This isn't to say that we're just critters, or as some have said, "monkeys with car key." Alone of all the beasts on the Earth, people can wonder. We can look up at the sky and wonder where all the stars come from and what they do up there. Without scientific knowledge, people created astrology, because we knew there had to be a reason for all that up there.
And the universe, through whatever agency, had to create people. After all, why have such endless splendor if there were no one around to wonder about it all? It would be highly illogical, to quote a well-known Vulcan, for it be otherwise.
People are social creatures. We can't help it. It's why we survived millions of years being chased by beats on the savanna, and how we managed to have mastodon burgers for dinner. One guy couldn't fight off a sabertooth tiger or bring down a hairy elephant, but a bunch could. And did. And those who did lived to pass on the tendency to their survivors.
So the first thing any babe needs to do to survive is locate and connect with their caregivers. Those who do this well survive. Those who don't, don't. So the trait survives in the species. Evolution at work.
This is really obvious when you see infants at work. My son didn't mind being held by others as a baby. As long as I or his momma or aunt were nearby. He'd look up at the stranger holding him, then look over to make sure a familiar face was nearby, and he was fine. Just insuring his defense, if needed. Again, evolution at work. Those babes who didn't keep the first line of defense on hand didn't survive, and didn't pass it on.
After a time, my son started to squirm and cry in the stranger's arms. "He misses his dad", they'd say. "No, he's sleepy", I said. "Just watch." Sure, within minutes of coming back to me, he was sound asleep. "How'd you know that?", they'd ask. "Simple. Sleeping is when a child is most vulnerable. He might sit in a stranger's arms and be fine, but he'd be durned if he was dozing off with someone who might not rise to the occasion if a saber-toothed tiger threatens him. He'd cry if he woke up from a nap and didn't see anyone. All I had to do to calm him would call from the next room, to let him know his parents were near. He'd stop and start cooing. Didn't need to see us, just know that we were near in case the hyenas came along. Again ...
This isn't to say that we're just critters, or as some have said, "monkeys with car key." Alone of all the beasts on the Earth, people can wonder. We can look up at the sky and wonder where all the stars come from and what they do up there. Without scientific knowledge, people created astrology, because we knew there had to be a reason for all that up there.
And the universe, through whatever agency, had to create people. After all, why have such endless splendor if there were no one around to wonder about it all? It would be highly illogical, to quote a well-known Vulcan, for it be otherwise.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Swimming with Sharks
The Tennessean reports that Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., “accuses Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of betraying him during a GOP revolt in a new, tell-all biography that expresses little remorse for the racially tinged remarks that led to Lott’s loss of power and Frist’s ascension.
In ‘Herding Cats: A Life in Politics,’ available in bookstores Aug. 23,” Lott “blames the media and a handful of his GOP colleagues for the loss of his Senate leadership job in December 2002.” Lott writes that ‘“I consider Frist’s power grab a personal betrayal,’” because ‘“When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions.’”
--------------------------------------------
My momma would say:
"You swim with sharks, you get bitten."
"You're known by the company you keep."
But perhaps Honest Abe (the last honest Republican) said it best:
"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."
In ‘Herding Cats: A Life in Politics,’ available in bookstores Aug. 23,” Lott “blames the media and a handful of his GOP colleagues for the loss of his Senate leadership job in December 2002.” Lott writes that ‘“I consider Frist’s power grab a personal betrayal,’” because ‘“When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions.’”
--------------------------------------------
My momma would say:
"You swim with sharks, you get bitten."
"You're known by the company you keep."
But perhaps Honest Abe (the last honest Republican) said it best:
"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."
Thursday, August 04, 2005
G.O.P. Spells "Pork"
From the Washington Post:
"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."
Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.
Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.
Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.
When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.
This week, House GOP leaders sent their legislators 52 pages of talking points, some addressing fiscal discipline, others touting the spending. The final page lays out 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events," none of which trumpets small government.
"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."
------------------------------------------------
"Do as I do, not as I say", the wise men advise. Now, when the Democrats take back Congress, we won't have to listen to all that "tax and spend" nonsense. Proof's in the pudding that, like many revolutionaries, the problem the GOP wasn't a matter of principle, it just a matter of power. Spending like a German tourist in Bangkok is just fine when you're the one doing it.
Now that they have the keys to the national safe, well, they're true to form. It's just one corporate welfare bill after another. While "welfare momma" is told to get her lazy butt down to Wal-Mart or starve, Halliburton gets license to spend whatever and whenever in Iraq. And if we don't pay up, well, the good people of Iraq will have to, according to Donald Rumsfeld, although they never had any say in turning over their hard-earneds to Cheney's boys in the first place. Haven't you Americans ever heard of "No taxation without representation?" they must wonder.
Then there's the energy bill, which gives fat energy companies gazillions in tax breaks because the free market rise in energy prices just ain't good enough. Since that money that's not going into the federal treasury will have to be made up by borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, it's a backdoor subsidy without the efficiency of just handing them the money directly.
Then there's the prescription discount for seniors. Ridiculously pricey because the government can't haggle for bulk rates under the law. You know, like a business would. (Whatever happened to "running government like a business?")
The economic cost of this will be felt for years to come. LBJ tried to run a cosmetics-and-cannon fiscal policy during the Vietnam year and we paid for it with 1970's "stagflation." Bush, Jr.'s borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, in good part on an equally pointless war, certainly risks the same. If we're "at war", where's the call for sacrifice? Americans willingly paid an extra charge on plane tickets for airport and related security. Where are the Iraq war bonds? Where's the call to duty on foreign shores and deserts?
Nowhere. The result is spend on useless armaments for a war with no reasonable goal and domestic transfers like energy and prescription drugs which could be left to the market or direct government subsidy. It's nothing for nothing, and we're all going to pay for it.
I believe most Americans want their government to take in and spend the way they do, take in what goes out, with credit used for long term and/or extraordinary expenses. The Dems need to remind folks that "tax and spend" is a problem when spend exceeds tax for no reason, and when spend is spent on stupid stuff, like corporate giveaways instead of Humvee armor.
Who would have thought that one of George Bush, Jr.'s legacies would be to turn the Democratic Party into the land of fiscal responsibility? Perhaps we should erect an inexpensive statue in his honor outside DNC HQ in 2009. It is, indeed, a pretty fundamental realignment and he should be. Something made of tin, several statues, with George taking a hammer to a child's piggy bank while a much bigger pig labeled "Greed, Inc." stands by waiting for the result, ought to do nicely.
"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."
Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.
Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.
Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.
When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.
This week, House GOP leaders sent their legislators 52 pages of talking points, some addressing fiscal discipline, others touting the spending. The final page lays out 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events," none of which trumpets small government.
"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."
------------------------------------------------
"Do as I do, not as I say", the wise men advise. Now, when the Democrats take back Congress, we won't have to listen to all that "tax and spend" nonsense. Proof's in the pudding that, like many revolutionaries, the problem the GOP wasn't a matter of principle, it just a matter of power. Spending like a German tourist in Bangkok is just fine when you're the one doing it.
Now that they have the keys to the national safe, well, they're true to form. It's just one corporate welfare bill after another. While "welfare momma" is told to get her lazy butt down to Wal-Mart or starve, Halliburton gets license to spend whatever and whenever in Iraq. And if we don't pay up, well, the good people of Iraq will have to, according to Donald Rumsfeld, although they never had any say in turning over their hard-earneds to Cheney's boys in the first place. Haven't you Americans ever heard of "No taxation without representation?" they must wonder.
Then there's the energy bill, which gives fat energy companies gazillions in tax breaks because the free market rise in energy prices just ain't good enough. Since that money that's not going into the federal treasury will have to be made up by borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, it's a backdoor subsidy without the efficiency of just handing them the money directly.
Then there's the prescription discount for seniors. Ridiculously pricey because the government can't haggle for bulk rates under the law. You know, like a business would. (Whatever happened to "running government like a business?")
The economic cost of this will be felt for years to come. LBJ tried to run a cosmetics-and-cannon fiscal policy during the Vietnam year and we paid for it with 1970's "stagflation." Bush, Jr.'s borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, in good part on an equally pointless war, certainly risks the same. If we're "at war", where's the call for sacrifice? Americans willingly paid an extra charge on plane tickets for airport and related security. Where are the Iraq war bonds? Where's the call to duty on foreign shores and deserts?
Nowhere. The result is spend on useless armaments for a war with no reasonable goal and domestic transfers like energy and prescription drugs which could be left to the market or direct government subsidy. It's nothing for nothing, and we're all going to pay for it.
I believe most Americans want their government to take in and spend the way they do, take in what goes out, with credit used for long term and/or extraordinary expenses. The Dems need to remind folks that "tax and spend" is a problem when spend exceeds tax for no reason, and when spend is spent on stupid stuff, like corporate giveaways instead of Humvee armor.
Who would have thought that one of George Bush, Jr.'s legacies would be to turn the Democratic Party into the land of fiscal responsibility? Perhaps we should erect an inexpensive statue in his honor outside DNC HQ in 2009. It is, indeed, a pretty fundamental realignment and he should be. Something made of tin, several statues, with George taking a hammer to a child's piggy bank while a much bigger pig labeled "Greed, Inc." stands by waiting for the result, ought to do nicely.
Preschool Enters the 21st Century ... finally
Sacramento's known for its toasty summers, but the afternoon was quite pleasant in the (dry) high '80s when I picked up Leroy from his afternoon daycare. I chatted with his teachers and some of his friends, and we left for home.
Leroy's been attending his particular daycare for two years now. He started when he began kindergarten. The daycare program is on-site, which meant that he simply had to go from class across a short yard to aftercare. As he was still on the school grounds, he could eat in the school cafeteria.
The program works under contract with the school district. This means it's subsidized in part. The rates are a hundred dollars a month less than local private care. Best of all, the staff gets paid a decent wage, with benefits. As a result, they stay. His private daycare, before he started school, attracted decent enough staff but many of them were in life transition. The young ones were working before or right after college. The older ones were often just working to get out of the house. There was easily about a fifty percent turnover each year, and the owner bemoaned how hard it was to get folks to stay for longer than two years.
There's a long argument wracking Congress over how to re-authorize the welfare bill. Part of it deals with how to fund daycare for workers going back in to the workforce.
The rightwingers want to limit it. The sensible people realize that a worker who can't pay for daycare won't be a worker much longer. The rightwingers don't like the idea of mommy not playing "Donna Reed" like the "good old days." The sensible people realize that that was then, this is now, the time of the two-income couple and single moms.
So we need universal daycare. The arguments against it are pretty much the ones heard 150 years ago when universal public education was first proposed. "Why is some other kid -my- responsibility?" Because when every child is educated, and comes into school well-attended and prepared, we all do better.
It's really just an extension of the universal public education, given what we demand out of kids today.
Kindergarten was developed on the idea of giving kids some prep on the basics of sitting in class. That's been done away with. Today's kindergarteners get homework. It's really not kindergarten anymore, it's pre-first grade. Preschool/childcare has become what kindergarten used to be. We need to finally accept that.
Like most good progressive ideas, this is built on enlightened self-interest.
Like public education, it will come. And it will come because business will insist on it. Just as the economic interests understood the need for an educated workforce 150 years ago, so they'll come to see the value of kids coming into school well-prepared. They'll also see the value of workers who aren't juggling home and family care as much. I know from my own experience and that of my co-workers with kids, you're a lot more focused when you know your young 'un is well-cared for while you're at the office. Many business benefit packages already offer childcare reimbursement as part of pre-tax benefits.
They'll come 'round. You can't outsource everything. Some economics are predicting another coming labor shortage, which puts employees back in the driver's seat, as it did with health care during the Clinton Prosperity of the '90s. Little Jane and Johnnie will like that.
For an interesting brief on the need for universal pre-school:
http://readysetgrowctkids.org/press_article_35.html
Leroy's been attending his particular daycare for two years now. He started when he began kindergarten. The daycare program is on-site, which meant that he simply had to go from class across a short yard to aftercare. As he was still on the school grounds, he could eat in the school cafeteria.
The program works under contract with the school district. This means it's subsidized in part. The rates are a hundred dollars a month less than local private care. Best of all, the staff gets paid a decent wage, with benefits. As a result, they stay. His private daycare, before he started school, attracted decent enough staff but many of them were in life transition. The young ones were working before or right after college. The older ones were often just working to get out of the house. There was easily about a fifty percent turnover each year, and the owner bemoaned how hard it was to get folks to stay for longer than two years.
There's a long argument wracking Congress over how to re-authorize the welfare bill. Part of it deals with how to fund daycare for workers going back in to the workforce.
The rightwingers want to limit it. The sensible people realize that a worker who can't pay for daycare won't be a worker much longer. The rightwingers don't like the idea of mommy not playing "Donna Reed" like the "good old days." The sensible people realize that that was then, this is now, the time of the two-income couple and single moms.
So we need universal daycare. The arguments against it are pretty much the ones heard 150 years ago when universal public education was first proposed. "Why is some other kid -my- responsibility?" Because when every child is educated, and comes into school well-attended and prepared, we all do better.
It's really just an extension of the universal public education, given what we demand out of kids today.
Kindergarten was developed on the idea of giving kids some prep on the basics of sitting in class. That's been done away with. Today's kindergarteners get homework. It's really not kindergarten anymore, it's pre-first grade. Preschool/childcare has become what kindergarten used to be. We need to finally accept that.
Like most good progressive ideas, this is built on enlightened self-interest.
Like public education, it will come. And it will come because business will insist on it. Just as the economic interests understood the need for an educated workforce 150 years ago, so they'll come to see the value of kids coming into school well-prepared. They'll also see the value of workers who aren't juggling home and family care as much. I know from my own experience and that of my co-workers with kids, you're a lot more focused when you know your young 'un is well-cared for while you're at the office. Many business benefit packages already offer childcare reimbursement as part of pre-tax benefits.
They'll come 'round. You can't outsource everything. Some economics are predicting another coming labor shortage, which puts employees back in the driver's seat, as it did with health care during the Clinton Prosperity of the '90s. Little Jane and Johnnie will like that.
For an interesting brief on the need for universal pre-school:
http://readysetgrowctkids.org/press_article_35.html
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Family Values
July 29, 2005
French Family Values
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?
Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.
First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
---------------------------------------------
Nothing highlights social conservatives' hypocrisy than the fact that they beat the drum for "family values" yet refuse to support or outright oppose policies which actually support families.
The U.S. has by far the least modern approach to reconciling work and family life. We allow little maternity leave or time for family. Want to have a baby? Sure, just be back at the desk in a couple of months, eh? Got to take time for a sick spouse or family member? Fine, but get back soon or your job belongs to someone else. We're not here to help you work through your life, kid. In other words, choose between taking care of your family's financial health or physical and emotional health. You can't do both. So many people don't. And they end up criticized for it.
Business screams that it's not fair for them to foot the bill. Yet Europe shows that when the cost is mandated across the field, it levels it. The result is a happier and healthier workforce, and more cohesive families. Which is what the social conservatives want, isn't it?
This contradiction points out just how far the social conservatives are well-used by corporate interests. In return for gobs of cash to push antediluvian social policies, they get thousands of earnest ground pounders who buy the "anti-everything" (except expensive tax breaks) line. It's a happy marriage, pun intended, which undermines adopting and implementing true pro-family policies.
It's so sad. I wonder what Jesus would say about expanded family leave? He'd probably think it's a good idea.
French Family Values
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?
Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.
First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
---------------------------------------------
Nothing highlights social conservatives' hypocrisy than the fact that they beat the drum for "family values" yet refuse to support or outright oppose policies which actually support families.
The U.S. has by far the least modern approach to reconciling work and family life. We allow little maternity leave or time for family. Want to have a baby? Sure, just be back at the desk in a couple of months, eh? Got to take time for a sick spouse or family member? Fine, but get back soon or your job belongs to someone else. We're not here to help you work through your life, kid. In other words, choose between taking care of your family's financial health or physical and emotional health. You can't do both. So many people don't. And they end up criticized for it.
Business screams that it's not fair for them to foot the bill. Yet Europe shows that when the cost is mandated across the field, it levels it. The result is a happier and healthier workforce, and more cohesive families. Which is what the social conservatives want, isn't it?
This contradiction points out just how far the social conservatives are well-used by corporate interests. In return for gobs of cash to push antediluvian social policies, they get thousands of earnest ground pounders who buy the "anti-everything" (except expensive tax breaks) line. It's a happy marriage, pun intended, which undermines adopting and implementing true pro-family policies.
It's so sad. I wonder what Jesus would say about expanded family leave? He'd probably think it's a good idea.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
God vs. Darwin (another reply)
Joe Ebola said...
What I can never wrap my head around is the total lack of any scientific evidence for creation. The fundamentalist Christians call it "intelligent design" and try to have it taught alongside evolution in schools because they believe there are gaps in the scientific evidence of evolution. But they offer absolutely no evidence for ID. All they have is their faith. I can respect that, I don't bedgrudge them their faith, but it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. I understand the need to that mankind is special, but all the evidence points to us being talking apes.
It’s a clever device, in that when one can’t argue the scientific point, all that’s left is to insist it’s all a theological discussion, which requires equal time for all sides.
Your point about "talking apes" is what fuels a lot of this. If there is no guiding force, then we really might not be a divine creation's best work. And, it their view, it justifies people acting like "animals." They don't like where they think the theory takes them, so they reject the theory itself. Despite all the evidence in favor of it.
What I can never wrap my head around is the total lack of any scientific evidence for creation. The fundamentalist Christians call it "intelligent design" and try to have it taught alongside evolution in schools because they believe there are gaps in the scientific evidence of evolution. But they offer absolutely no evidence for ID. All they have is their faith. I can respect that, I don't bedgrudge them their faith, but it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. I understand the need to that mankind is special, but all the evidence points to us being talking apes.
-----------------------
This is my frustration with the anti-Darwin side. Because their view is wholly based on faith, they immediately assume every counterveiling is the same. They don't take time to understand the science.It’s a clever device, in that when one can’t argue the scientific point, all that’s left is to insist it’s all a theological discussion, which requires equal time for all sides.
Your point about "talking apes" is what fuels a lot of this. If there is no guiding force, then we really might not be a divine creation's best work. And, it their view, it justifies people acting like "animals." They don't like where they think the theory takes them, so they reject the theory itself. Despite all the evidence in favor of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
