There are over 16 months till the next U.S. Presidential contest and it has already invited itself into the home by television, magazines, internet, radio, telephone, and conversation. Paid anti-Obama TV commercials are airing frequently. It feels like it won’t be long before they’re competing with pharmaceuticals for gross intrusion. Like a warm week in February, I can’t help wondering if this is somehow different than last time, is the hot summer starting early or not?
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Who's Taking Care of Grandma?
Somewhere around Scottsdale, Arizona four senior gentlemen are finishing their putts on the 4th green on an early Tuesday afternoon. It’s sunny…of course. They’re growling about the safety of their Social Security payments and the obvious government conspiracy to take those payments away, probably through taxation. Later after the game they’ll have a couple of beers at the clubhouse, mount their Acuras and ride home to wait on dinner. At the same time, somewhere just outside Columbus, Ohio a couple in their early 70s sit at the kitchen table in their small apartment trying to figure out when they can afford front tires for their 10 year old Sentra. Each golfer (with his wife) receives about $26,000 a year in Social Security, representing 30% of his current income. The Columbus couple receives $15,600 annually which represents 91% of their total income - they worry even more about their Social Security.
Social Security, your politicians explain, is fully funded through…well…a run-out-of-money date, no-viability date, buy-the-ranch date, or whatever date floats, so much so it isn’t worth remembering. Just assume it’s some time out there, so they say, which is also so much horse poopee. The reality is that it isn’t funded at all and hasn’t been as long as this nation has run deficits and accumulated debt. How can that be, you ask? They’ve got that account with those trillions of dollars of bonds in it, that bastion of security – the Social Security Trust Fund!!
The Social Security Trust Fund was born in 1983 because the original concept of Social Security in the 1930s as a pay-as-you-go system was no longer functional. It started well, but ended up bad, I guess when nobody was looking. Benefits currently paid exceeded receipts and when you ran the numbers out over decades of aging workers, they got pretty ugly to look at. Alan Greenspan spearheaded the policy to increase payroll taxes essentially replicating the early years of Social Security when current revenues exceeded current payout, but this time we decided to put the surplus in a nice safe place to fund projected claims as the population grew older. Ergo, the Trust Fund. Moreover, it preserved the concept (dare I say: illusion for the conservatively minded) that Social Security was some kind of paid in retirement plan - not the horrid W-word plan. Of course, this contrived concept was not reality; primarily because the nation’s low tax/ high spend mania could not be abated.
To give you an example of this shell game: say you wanted to fund your own retirement plan, but as luck would have it the idea of doing so would put a crimp into your lifestyle, especially when that lifestyle exceeds your income. But, being sensible and thinking of the future (which was looking pretty bleak), you decide to go ahead and put 10% of your income into your retirement plan account. Then you realize that your flat screen is way too small, the green fees down at the club just went up, you know you’d feel a whole lot safer if you drove a Hummer, and all those plans are in jeopardy because you’d be short on cash. Then you come up with a great idea. You can fund your retirement with IOUs…with interest! Now you’ve got this great retirement plan, with great interest bearing notes in it, you can even pay the interest to yourself with more IOUs, and you still get to buy all that crap you can’t live without. Does it get any better than that? One small problem: when you want to start receiving those nice fat retirement checks, you’ll have to keep working to pay for them.
National debt is simply and purely nothing more than deferred taxes (which includes fees and divestiture of public assets). There is virtually only one way to eliminate debt without the transfer of real assets (taxing), and it’s not default. A nation cannot really default, at least not American style; there is no international Chapter 11. The debt doesn’t go away. People just stop lending you money. The only real way to dodge paying it all back is by devaluing what you owe, i.e. inflation. When a $100,000 Treasury bond buys you one quart of milk the Treasury is pretty much out of debt. As it happens, as a citizen and taxpayer you’re pretty much out of debt as well. Of course, there is also a lot of other really nasty stuff that goes along with that - but let’s not dwell on economic Armageddon.
Social Security (funded through whenever) is comprised then of deferred taxes, essentially the same if there was no Social Security Trust Fund at all. We’d either cover the tab on Social Security (and OASI) by taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations or (as in the current scenario) taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations to pay off the debt - sounds kinda similar to me. Of course we could continue to borrow more and more, but that boat ain’t gonna float...not without taking a broadside from the inflation torpedo.
The only way to deal with Social Security and all so called entitlements in which future benefits are unfunded is to begin to accept what it is and what it has always been since its inception. Someone who bends to the left might call it welfare; someone who bends to the right might call it insurance. It’s the same either way.
Our politicians enacted and we have subsequently accepted that, as a nation, we don’t want people, who because of age or health can no longer work, to be left in the streets to rot in public view. Historically that was actually the case, especially in the early immergence of urban industrialization. Social Security, even with our chest pounding raw dedication to free enterprise, was created during a brief, admirable embrace of humanity. Yet very soon it was subverted into a notion of a personal investment, by those who opposed it from the outset.
Personally I like to call it insurance (does that mean I lean to the Right?). No one can project who is ultimately subject to misfortune. Some perhaps by chance, some by their own hand, but what difference does it make? By paying into a concept of spreading the risk, as we should be doing with healthcare, we cover ourselves, our parents, and our children. With any luck at all we may never need a penny of it, and when that’s the case we shouldn’t get a penny.
The solvency of Social Security should be attained by continually reducing the projected unfunded benefits to those whose needs don’t meet its purpose. There ought to be set target limits on benefits, with benefits providing an honorable lifestyle. Using the Tax Code, Social Security payments should be taxed at rates up to 100% once income reaches and exceeds those levels. There could be some minor means testing of benefits, but it is still reasonable that those who paid in more should still receive higher benefits, since their qualification to receive benefits would presume a greater lifetime drop in living standards.
It should again be pay-as-you-go and be funded through a flat tax, as it currently is, but that tax should not have income limitations. Another dumping on the wealthy, you say? Hardly. The economic and social stability of a society always has and always will benefit the wealthy most. That’s because it increases predictability, which is the cornerstone of investment.
Social Security, your politicians explain, is fully funded through…well…a run-out-of-money date, no-viability date, buy-the-ranch date, or whatever date floats, so much so it isn’t worth remembering. Just assume it’s some time out there, so they say, which is also so much horse poopee. The reality is that it isn’t funded at all and hasn’t been as long as this nation has run deficits and accumulated debt. How can that be, you ask? They’ve got that account with those trillions of dollars of bonds in it, that bastion of security – the Social Security Trust Fund!!
The Social Security Trust Fund was born in 1983 because the original concept of Social Security in the 1930s as a pay-as-you-go system was no longer functional. It started well, but ended up bad, I guess when nobody was looking. Benefits currently paid exceeded receipts and when you ran the numbers out over decades of aging workers, they got pretty ugly to look at. Alan Greenspan spearheaded the policy to increase payroll taxes essentially replicating the early years of Social Security when current revenues exceeded current payout, but this time we decided to put the surplus in a nice safe place to fund projected claims as the population grew older. Ergo, the Trust Fund. Moreover, it preserved the concept (dare I say: illusion for the conservatively minded) that Social Security was some kind of paid in retirement plan - not the horrid W-word plan. Of course, this contrived concept was not reality; primarily because the nation’s low tax/ high spend mania could not be abated.
To give you an example of this shell game: say you wanted to fund your own retirement plan, but as luck would have it the idea of doing so would put a crimp into your lifestyle, especially when that lifestyle exceeds your income. But, being sensible and thinking of the future (which was looking pretty bleak), you decide to go ahead and put 10% of your income into your retirement plan account. Then you realize that your flat screen is way too small, the green fees down at the club just went up, you know you’d feel a whole lot safer if you drove a Hummer, and all those plans are in jeopardy because you’d be short on cash. Then you come up with a great idea. You can fund your retirement with IOUs…with interest! Now you’ve got this great retirement plan, with great interest bearing notes in it, you can even pay the interest to yourself with more IOUs, and you still get to buy all that crap you can’t live without. Does it get any better than that? One small problem: when you want to start receiving those nice fat retirement checks, you’ll have to keep working to pay for them.
National debt is simply and purely nothing more than deferred taxes (which includes fees and divestiture of public assets). There is virtually only one way to eliminate debt without the transfer of real assets (taxing), and it’s not default. A nation cannot really default, at least not American style; there is no international Chapter 11. The debt doesn’t go away. People just stop lending you money. The only real way to dodge paying it all back is by devaluing what you owe, i.e. inflation. When a $100,000 Treasury bond buys you one quart of milk the Treasury is pretty much out of debt. As it happens, as a citizen and taxpayer you’re pretty much out of debt as well. Of course, there is also a lot of other really nasty stuff that goes along with that - but let’s not dwell on economic Armageddon.
Social Security (funded through whenever) is comprised then of deferred taxes, essentially the same if there was no Social Security Trust Fund at all. We’d either cover the tab on Social Security (and OASI) by taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations or (as in the current scenario) taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations to pay off the debt - sounds kinda similar to me. Of course we could continue to borrow more and more, but that boat ain’t gonna float...not without taking a broadside from the inflation torpedo.
The only way to deal with Social Security and all so called entitlements in which future benefits are unfunded is to begin to accept what it is and what it has always been since its inception. Someone who bends to the left might call it welfare; someone who bends to the right might call it insurance. It’s the same either way.
Our politicians enacted and we have subsequently accepted that, as a nation, we don’t want people, who because of age or health can no longer work, to be left in the streets to rot in public view. Historically that was actually the case, especially in the early immergence of urban industrialization. Social Security, even with our chest pounding raw dedication to free enterprise, was created during a brief, admirable embrace of humanity. Yet very soon it was subverted into a notion of a personal investment, by those who opposed it from the outset.
Personally I like to call it insurance (does that mean I lean to the Right?). No one can project who is ultimately subject to misfortune. Some perhaps by chance, some by their own hand, but what difference does it make? By paying into a concept of spreading the risk, as we should be doing with healthcare, we cover ourselves, our parents, and our children. With any luck at all we may never need a penny of it, and when that’s the case we shouldn’t get a penny.
The solvency of Social Security should be attained by continually reducing the projected unfunded benefits to those whose needs don’t meet its purpose. There ought to be set target limits on benefits, with benefits providing an honorable lifestyle. Using the Tax Code, Social Security payments should be taxed at rates up to 100% once income reaches and exceeds those levels. There could be some minor means testing of benefits, but it is still reasonable that those who paid in more should still receive higher benefits, since their qualification to receive benefits would presume a greater lifetime drop in living standards.
It should again be pay-as-you-go and be funded through a flat tax, as it currently is, but that tax should not have income limitations. Another dumping on the wealthy, you say? Hardly. The economic and social stability of a society always has and always will benefit the wealthy most. That’s because it increases predictability, which is the cornerstone of investment.
Monday, February 7, 2011
My Pool
I hated my pool.
I didn’t want it, it came
With the house, laying in the
Back yard like an old
Slobbering dog, exacting
Squeals of delight from my
Young children, humming and
Gurgling a ditty of “feed me
With your fortune” and “caress
Me with your time”.
And I relented,
Seduced by images
Of shared joy and clear, warm
Nights where light breezes
Cool my wet hair and I am
Near weightless of care. But
The years passed and I did not
Count on the winters, the
Fallout of nature’s endless
Cycle of death to life and
Back to death again. And I,
Immersed in the struggle to
Keep the waters clear, felt no
Longer capable of finding the
Delicate balance between a
Chemistry of desire and the
Tension that suspends debris
In places I could hardly reach.
I wanted to cover it, permanently,
Or fill it with something
That blended with the landscape.
Perhaps become a place
Where I could plant seeds, seeds
That said “feed me with your
Fortune” and “caress me with your
Time and I will grow for you”.
And in the spring, I did.
With great machines and trucks
Of dirt, it vanished from sight.
It no longer waits to be cleaned and
The shriveled brown leaves of fall
Blow across it unhindered.
It is gone, or good as gone.
Even if the wet earth of winter
Sinks ever so slightly in what was
The deep end.
I didn’t want it, it came
With the house, laying in the
Back yard like an old
Slobbering dog, exacting
Squeals of delight from my
Young children, humming and
Gurgling a ditty of “feed me
With your fortune” and “caress
Me with your time”.
And I relented,
Seduced by images
Of shared joy and clear, warm
Nights where light breezes
Cool my wet hair and I am
Near weightless of care. But
The years passed and I did not
Count on the winters, the
Fallout of nature’s endless
Cycle of death to life and
Back to death again. And I,
Immersed in the struggle to
Keep the waters clear, felt no
Longer capable of finding the
Delicate balance between a
Chemistry of desire and the
Tension that suspends debris
In places I could hardly reach.
I wanted to cover it, permanently,
Or fill it with something
That blended with the landscape.
Perhaps become a place
Where I could plant seeds, seeds
That said “feed me with your
Fortune” and “caress me with your
Time and I will grow for you”.
And in the spring, I did.
With great machines and trucks
Of dirt, it vanished from sight.
It no longer waits to be cleaned and
The shriveled brown leaves of fall
Blow across it unhindered.
It is gone, or good as gone.
Even if the wet earth of winter
Sinks ever so slightly in what was
The deep end.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care...?
…“Does anybody see what I see?” Those are lines in a song from the 1969 Broadway musical 1776. The actor playing John Adams sings this soliloquy lamenting why members of the Continental Congress can’t see what is so obvious to him, namely the need for independence from Great Britain. There are times when any of us might arrive at a conclusion that seems both obviously correct and contrarian at the same time. Later, more often than not, additional information can have us viewing things differently, perhaps even causing a touch of chagrin. Don’t you hate that, when things appeared so certain?
I currently find myself burdened by such a view and have seriously struggled to find reasons why that view might not be correct. I haven’t found any…at least not yet. I’m talking about Health Care in America. I have written about it previously, but, frankly, it cannot be brought up enough. It is the single most import issue in the United States today, because it impacts so many aspects of life simultaneously.
Yet even then it wouldn’t work effectively or efficiently. There is nothing in a for-profit health care system that can control the cost because, in economic terms, there is almost no elasticity in demand. That means individual demand for health care services does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Total demand might drop simply because people can no longer afford health care, fall out of the system and die, but for those paying with their remaining assets the costs would continue to spiral up. The whole concept is not self-sustaining and it is ripping apart the fabric of our nation. Does anybody care?
A young person might ask what is so different now compared to decades past…a lot actually. First and most critical, the population of the United States has more than tripled in the last 100 years. Modern medicine as we know it now is relatively new. The technological changes that have transformed medicine (micro biology, pharmaceuticals, genetics, and numerous others, for example) have mostly occurred during the lives of living generations.
I currently find myself burdened by such a view and have seriously struggled to find reasons why that view might not be correct. I haven’t found any…at least not yet. I’m talking about Health Care in America. I have written about it previously, but, frankly, it cannot be brought up enough. It is the single most import issue in the United States today, because it impacts so many aspects of life simultaneously.
It is the single biggest expenditure for the Nation’s people, dwarfing Defense. It’s the single biggest hindrance for freedom to seek employment. It is possibly the most inefficient system of any kind (based on size) in the history of modern man. It’s the single biggest inhibitor for small business expansion. It is a major cause of disabling anxiety for the middle class. It is the single biggest transfer of wealth in the history of this Country…or any other country. I’m not making this up. Currently $1.8 trillion annually comes out of your pocket (directly, in taxes, public debt – which is only deferred taxes - or for you by your employer) and ends up…well, somewhere else.
Yet the negative nature of this system in its entirety is nearly oblivious to large segments of our population. More amazingly, there are segments which have been convinced to actively support this System against their own best interest.
The wealthy can self-insure and since they are (unwittingly or not) the beneficiaries of the transfer they are hardly inclined to admit what is happening. Their surrogates in Congress will repeat that we have the best health care system in the world, over and over. The employed insured are annoyed but at the same time blinded by not being able to understand the true cost of what they’re paying. The poor have little incentive, because they can tap into existing welfare and have little (materially) to lose. The elderly actively resist change because they already receive universal coverage and are frightened by those who say change will take that away. The young (those say 18 to 30) for the most part are comatose on the subject, primarily kept unconscious by their natural good health.
The opinion of the wealthy will not change; moreover they will do whatever it takes to retain the status quo. The employed insured, most notably working Conservatives, will not challenge the System, unable to recognize their own deleterious behavior, even as they unload every bullet they have into their own feet. They are too malleable by use of fear. It is for the youth of America that I’m writing this piece. They are the only ones who can effect change and they are ones paying the price right now, by the accumulation of extraordinary debt and lost opportunities. They should be shouting from the roof tops or stampeding in the streets. Is anybody there?
The universal dispensation of health care cannot exist in a large modern economy today as a for-profit, free enterprise system…period. It might appear to work if you’re willing to give up the universality. You’d have to let a segment of your economy go without health care regardless of their desire to get it. More metaphorically, you have to let people die in the streets, so to speak.0
Yet the negative nature of this system in its entirety is nearly oblivious to large segments of our population. More amazingly, there are segments which have been convinced to actively support this System against their own best interest.
The wealthy can self-insure and since they are (unwittingly or not) the beneficiaries of the transfer they are hardly inclined to admit what is happening. Their surrogates in Congress will repeat that we have the best health care system in the world, over and over. The employed insured are annoyed but at the same time blinded by not being able to understand the true cost of what they’re paying. The poor have little incentive, because they can tap into existing welfare and have little (materially) to lose. The elderly actively resist change because they already receive universal coverage and are frightened by those who say change will take that away. The young (those say 18 to 30) for the most part are comatose on the subject, primarily kept unconscious by their natural good health.
The opinion of the wealthy will not change; moreover they will do whatever it takes to retain the status quo. The employed insured, most notably working Conservatives, will not challenge the System, unable to recognize their own deleterious behavior, even as they unload every bullet they have into their own feet. They are too malleable by use of fear. It is for the youth of America that I’m writing this piece. They are the only ones who can effect change and they are ones paying the price right now, by the accumulation of extraordinary debt and lost opportunities. They should be shouting from the roof tops or stampeding in the streets. Is anybody there?
The universal dispensation of health care cannot exist in a large modern economy today as a for-profit, free enterprise system…period. It might appear to work if you’re willing to give up the universality. You’d have to let a segment of your economy go without health care regardless of their desire to get it. More metaphorically, you have to let people die in the streets, so to speak.0
Yet even then it wouldn’t work effectively or efficiently. There is nothing in a for-profit health care system that can control the cost because, in economic terms, there is almost no elasticity in demand. That means individual demand for health care services does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Total demand might drop simply because people can no longer afford health care, fall out of the system and die, but for those paying with their remaining assets the costs would continue to spiral up. The whole concept is not self-sustaining and it is ripping apart the fabric of our nation. Does anybody care?
A young person might ask what is so different now compared to decades past…a lot actually. First and most critical, the population of the United States has more than tripled in the last 100 years. Modern medicine as we know it now is relatively new. The technological changes that have transformed medicine (micro biology, pharmaceuticals, genetics, and numerous others, for example) have mostly occurred during the lives of living generations.
Further, historically through most of the 20th century, the practice of medicine was mostly non-profit. Most doctors worked independently in conjunction with hospitals that were publicly or charitably owned. The massive change toward capitalization of health care with the rise of professional corporations and huge hospital corporations has taken place mostly over the past 30 years. The bones of the beast became the medical insurance corporations, and the life blood of the beast is debt, public and private.
No other large advanced economy in the world has had this experience. Universal public health care in Europe and Asia is as old as the medical industrial complex is in the United States, most originating in their current form just after World War 2. Canada tried the American approach but soon realized the obvious and converted to universal public health care in the early 60s.
No other large advanced economy in the world has had this experience. Universal public health care in Europe and Asia is as old as the medical industrial complex is in the United States, most originating in their current form just after World War 2. Canada tried the American approach but soon realized the obvious and converted to universal public health care in the early 60s.
Now Americans pay multiples of what other modern economies pay, on a per capita basis, for health care that barely rates above third world countries for the nation as a whole. And even with all these resources spent, the fear of being turned out on the streets by the insurance companies due to a job change, or contracting a disease, or having an accident, and end up running out of assets pervades the middle class like a perpetual black cloud. Can anybody see what I see?
There should be a revolution between the young people of American against those who are on the receiving end of that annual $1.8 trillion transfer. When Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor endlessly repeat the phrase “government takeover of health care” to describe the recent health care law (that only modestly modified the health care insurance industry) they are using fear to maintain the status quo.
There should be a revolution between the young people of American against those who are on the receiving end of that annual $1.8 trillion transfer. When Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor endlessly repeat the phrase “government takeover of health care” to describe the recent health care law (that only modestly modified the health care insurance industry) they are using fear to maintain the status quo.
Such should be heard as clarion call for American youth to demonstrate against the hypocrisy. Young people did it during the Vietnam War because they felt personally at risk. Well…they’re at risk now, as we all are. But the youth of America will bear the brunt of the disaster, the longer they wait to show up and open their eyes.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Lip Dancing
Last Sunday David Gregory interviewed the Nation’s new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Meet the Press. I was pleasantly surprised to see him appropriately aggressive in trying to extract answers from Leader Cantor. It’s not that the responses Cantor provided were notably more off point than many other politicians might deliver. It was simply more noticeable to me because I was listening - primarily because I happen to live in the District which has the ignominious honor of placing Cantor in Office.
Fortunately I happen to have a memory of inconceivable depth and, with only minor paraphrasing, can reconstruct the entire interview for those of you who missed the show. So here it is; Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) meets the press, January 23rd 2011:
MR. GREGORY: Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
REP. ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, David.
MR. GREGORY: Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it. Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say. I heard him in a news conference talking about cutting back on the White House menu. I believe he was introducing some low cost Kenyan dishes. We applaud his thrift, yet still have no disagreement with some spending to comply with his ethnic leanings.
MR. GREGORY: But he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; if you want to grow asparagus, David, you know you have to cut them to the root for the first 2 or 3 years.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
REP. CANTOR: When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be competitive. But how does that equate to jobs jobs jobs? If we can’t eliminate Obamanistic regulations every pool boy in the nation, so to speak, could find themselves out of work.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, well, let's just be clear. You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive. That's not a vision you agree with.
REP. CANTOR: David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector. Doesn’t it make sense to end the egregious taxes on the wealth builders of the nation…say those with net taxable income of $500,000 and over, who are struggling to make America the land the of Free? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead to have a national sales tax on food and strike a blow against obesity?
MR. GREGORY: Right. OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off. Cut and grow, that's the mantra. You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure."
REP. CANTOR: David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges. We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington. I mean apples are apples.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?
REP. CANTOR: And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions. We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.
MR. GREGORY: It seems like it's a straightforward question, though. Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge? I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...
REP. CANTOR: David...
MR. GREGORY: ...$100 billion figure. Can you make it or not?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion. Did you hear me: ANN-U-AL-LIZED.
MR. GREGORY: Which means what exactly?
REP. CANTOR: It’s simple David. You take the savings on the first day times 365, add in potential savings projected over the remaining term of this Congress, subtract all non-budgetary defense spending, multiply by the percentage of homes in foreclosure relative to the number of housing starts, and divide by 11.
MR. GREGORY: Right. You talk about the debt, its passing $14 trillion. This is what you said in The Washington Post: "`It's a leverage moment for Republicans. The president needs us. There are things we were elected to do. Let's accomplish those if that the president needs us to clean up the old mess.” I want you to be specific here. What's the leverage moment?
REP. CANTOR: Well, let, let me be clear, David. Republicans are not going to vote for this increase in the debt limit unless there are serious tax cuts, and some damned impressive spending cuts as well.
MR. GREGORY: Like what?
REP. CANTOR: I mean--and, and that is just the way it is, OK?
MR. GREGORY: Right. But you don't have--if you say serious spending cuts, you clearly have--don't have something specific in mind, right? You--in other words, you'll, you'll know it when you see it, is that the approach?
REP. CANTOR: No, no, that's not true. When my grandmother used to make pies during the holidays, any cutbacks in fruit didn’t detract from the joy of the season.
MR. GREGORY: But let's deal with the--you're not tackling entitlements. What about defense? Is defense on the table, defense cuts on the table? Do they have to be?
REP. CANTOR: I'll get to entitlements in a second if you want.
MR. GREGORY: OK.
REP. CANTOR: But I can tell you, we've always said this, too: We put everything on the table; glasses, silverware, napkins…no one sets a table like the Young Guns.
MR. GREGORY: Including defense cuts.
REP. CANTOR: I said Young Guns, didn’t I?
MR. GREGORY: OK. But look at The Wall Street Journal, the piece by Dick Armey of Freedom Works, the tea party group. He said "Let's scrap the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, end farm subsidies, and end urban mass transit grants, just for starters." Would those be on the table?
REP. CANTOR: Everything, David, is on the table. Salt…pepper…
MR. GREGORY: Cancer research is on the table.
REP. CANTOR: …table cloth, condiments…I can’t be more clear.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Social Security. Are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?
REP. CANTOR: David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements. Let’s face it. We have to get these people off the gravy train. Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though.
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?
REP. CANTOR: David, we've got plenty of old Republicans in Congress right now receiving Social Security. This is not an issue that doesn’t hold potential sacrifice.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR: Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that. It’s called The Young Guns and it’s available on-line at Amazon and all national bookstore chains or can be purchased directly from my website at ericcantor.gov.
MR. GREGORY: But what are you for? Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.
REP. CANTOR: Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do. We’ve written it all down. In fact, here’s a copy I brought for you…
MR. GREGORY: How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening? It's been discussed for years.
REP. CANTOR: David, please…read the book. I suggest you ask your friends to buy a copy for themselves as well.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let's, let's move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president's healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?
REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want. Obamanistic socialized government control of doctors, where panels of Kenyan and Mexican bureaucratic green card holders decide if Grandma is ready for the Ice Flow is hardly the American way of doing things.
MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you're talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes?
REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we're all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can't start with a Washington-controlled system. That's the structure of Obamacare. It’s not Americare. They don’t put the word “free” in free-enterprise for no reason at all.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little about politics. Do you think, as 40 percent in our recent poll thought, the president's become a moderate. Do you agree with that?
REP. CANTOR: Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Let’s just see how enthusiastically he supports our positions before we call him a moderate.
MR. GREGORY: There's been a lot of talk about discourse, about how you all can get along a little bit better and do it a little bit more civilly. And I wonder, this is the leadership moment here, OK? There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that it--his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I mean, a lot of that has been an, an issue sort of generated by not only the media, but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that, and they want us to focus...
MR. GREGORY: Right. Is somebody bringing that up just engaging in crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, I, I don't think it's, it's nice to call anyone crazy, OK?
MR. GREGORY: All right. Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?
REP. CANTOR: And--so I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all. President Obama being fathered by a Kenyan national, born under mysterious circumstances, supposedly in Hawaii, has no place in Congressional debate.
MR. GREGORY: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks.
REP. CANTOR: No. I think the president's a citizen of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Period.
REP. CANTOR: So what--yes. Why, why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling? I think he's a citizen of the United States…as far as I can tell.
MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. Is the tea party a difficult crosscurrent in the Republican Party to manage right now?
REP. CANTOR: Perhaps. I've always said this. The tea party--first of all, the acronym for ‘Tea’ is "Taxed enough already" and the acronym for ‘Party’ is “People assisting Republican tax yodeling”. So the tea party has come in and said enough taxing already.
MR. GREGORY: So you think the tea party's here to stay?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. Do the carnivals still show up every Independence Day weekend?
MR. GREGORY: Right. Leader, more to do but we're out of time.
REP. CANTOR: Thanks, David.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.
Fortunately I happen to have a memory of inconceivable depth and, with only minor paraphrasing, can reconstruct the entire interview for those of you who missed the show. So here it is; Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) meets the press, January 23rd 2011:
MR. GREGORY: Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
REP. ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, David.
MR. GREGORY: Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it. Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say. I heard him in a news conference talking about cutting back on the White House menu. I believe he was introducing some low cost Kenyan dishes. We applaud his thrift, yet still have no disagreement with some spending to comply with his ethnic leanings.
MR. GREGORY: But he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; if you want to grow asparagus, David, you know you have to cut them to the root for the first 2 or 3 years.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
REP. CANTOR: When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be competitive. But how does that equate to jobs jobs jobs? If we can’t eliminate Obamanistic regulations every pool boy in the nation, so to speak, could find themselves out of work.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, well, let's just be clear. You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive. That's not a vision you agree with.
REP. CANTOR: David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector. Doesn’t it make sense to end the egregious taxes on the wealth builders of the nation…say those with net taxable income of $500,000 and over, who are struggling to make America the land the of Free? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead to have a national sales tax on food and strike a blow against obesity?
MR. GREGORY: Right. OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off. Cut and grow, that's the mantra. You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure."
REP. CANTOR: David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges. We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington. I mean apples are apples.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?
REP. CANTOR: And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions. We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.
MR. GREGORY: It seems like it's a straightforward question, though. Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge? I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...
REP. CANTOR: David...
MR. GREGORY: ...$100 billion figure. Can you make it or not?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion. Did you hear me: ANN-U-AL-LIZED.
MR. GREGORY: Which means what exactly?
REP. CANTOR: It’s simple David. You take the savings on the first day times 365, add in potential savings projected over the remaining term of this Congress, subtract all non-budgetary defense spending, multiply by the percentage of homes in foreclosure relative to the number of housing starts, and divide by 11.
MR. GREGORY: Right. You talk about the debt, its passing $14 trillion. This is what you said in The Washington Post: "`It's a leverage moment for Republicans. The president needs us. There are things we were elected to do. Let's accomplish those if that the president needs us to clean up the old mess.” I want you to be specific here. What's the leverage moment?
REP. CANTOR: Well, let, let me be clear, David. Republicans are not going to vote for this increase in the debt limit unless there are serious tax cuts, and some damned impressive spending cuts as well.
MR. GREGORY: Like what?
REP. CANTOR: I mean--and, and that is just the way it is, OK?
MR. GREGORY: Right. But you don't have--if you say serious spending cuts, you clearly have--don't have something specific in mind, right? You--in other words, you'll, you'll know it when you see it, is that the approach?
REP. CANTOR: No, no, that's not true. When my grandmother used to make pies during the holidays, any cutbacks in fruit didn’t detract from the joy of the season.
MR. GREGORY: But let's deal with the--you're not tackling entitlements. What about defense? Is defense on the table, defense cuts on the table? Do they have to be?
REP. CANTOR: I'll get to entitlements in a second if you want.
MR. GREGORY: OK.
REP. CANTOR: But I can tell you, we've always said this, too: We put everything on the table; glasses, silverware, napkins…no one sets a table like the Young Guns.
MR. GREGORY: Including defense cuts.
REP. CANTOR: I said Young Guns, didn’t I?
MR. GREGORY: OK. But look at The Wall Street Journal, the piece by Dick Armey of Freedom Works, the tea party group. He said "Let's scrap the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, end farm subsidies, and end urban mass transit grants, just for starters." Would those be on the table?
REP. CANTOR: Everything, David, is on the table. Salt…pepper…
MR. GREGORY: Cancer research is on the table.
REP. CANTOR: …table cloth, condiments…I can’t be more clear.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Social Security. Are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?
REP. CANTOR: David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements. Let’s face it. We have to get these people off the gravy train. Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though.
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?
REP. CANTOR: David, we've got plenty of old Republicans in Congress right now receiving Social Security. This is not an issue that doesn’t hold potential sacrifice.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR: Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that. It’s called The Young Guns and it’s available on-line at Amazon and all national bookstore chains or can be purchased directly from my website at ericcantor.gov.
MR. GREGORY: But what are you for? Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.
REP. CANTOR: Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do. We’ve written it all down. In fact, here’s a copy I brought for you…
MR. GREGORY: How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening? It's been discussed for years.
REP. CANTOR: David, please…read the book. I suggest you ask your friends to buy a copy for themselves as well.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let's, let's move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president's healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?
REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want. Obamanistic socialized government control of doctors, where panels of Kenyan and Mexican bureaucratic green card holders decide if Grandma is ready for the Ice Flow is hardly the American way of doing things.
MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you're talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes?
REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we're all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can't start with a Washington-controlled system. That's the structure of Obamacare. It’s not Americare. They don’t put the word “free” in free-enterprise for no reason at all.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little about politics. Do you think, as 40 percent in our recent poll thought, the president's become a moderate. Do you agree with that?
REP. CANTOR: Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Let’s just see how enthusiastically he supports our positions before we call him a moderate.
MR. GREGORY: There's been a lot of talk about discourse, about how you all can get along a little bit better and do it a little bit more civilly. And I wonder, this is the leadership moment here, OK? There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that it--his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I mean, a lot of that has been an, an issue sort of generated by not only the media, but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that, and they want us to focus...
MR. GREGORY: Right. Is somebody bringing that up just engaging in crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, I, I don't think it's, it's nice to call anyone crazy, OK?
MR. GREGORY: All right. Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?
REP. CANTOR: And--so I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all. President Obama being fathered by a Kenyan national, born under mysterious circumstances, supposedly in Hawaii, has no place in Congressional debate.
MR. GREGORY: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks.
REP. CANTOR: No. I think the president's a citizen of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Period.
REP. CANTOR: So what--yes. Why, why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling? I think he's a citizen of the United States…as far as I can tell.
MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. Is the tea party a difficult crosscurrent in the Republican Party to manage right now?
REP. CANTOR: Perhaps. I've always said this. The tea party--first of all, the acronym for ‘Tea’ is "Taxed enough already" and the acronym for ‘Party’ is “People assisting Republican tax yodeling”. So the tea party has come in and said enough taxing already.
MR. GREGORY: So you think the tea party's here to stay?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. Do the carnivals still show up every Independence Day weekend?
MR. GREGORY: Right. Leader, more to do but we're out of time.
REP. CANTOR: Thanks, David.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Game of Concentration
Sunday I successfully managed to absorb the better part of six hours watching the professional football conference championships. The previous weekend I could claim nearly double that amount of time watching four playoff games. As a football game is only 60 minutes, which includes much of the players standing around time, huddling, and forming at the line of scrimmage, etc., it makes one wonder just what holds my attention so well? Now I like pro football a lot, and there are numerous moments of excitement or potential excitement in every game…but six hours is six hours.
I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.
It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.
What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.
Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.
So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.
Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.
It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.
To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.
I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.
It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.
What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.
Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.
So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.
Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.
It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.
To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Irresistibly Dumb
For about 25 years, with some minor gaps in time, I have had a full beard. For no particular reason every 7 or 8 years I might shave it off for a brief period or modify it in some fashion. Each time I would be fascinated that, upon arriving at my office, people who worked closely with me would not initially notice its absence. Conversely, those I saw infrequently would pipe right up and usually register an exclamation of sorts (maybe fright). My wife once went weeks without grasping that I had reduced my full beard down to a goatee, only realizing it when my daughter arrived from out of town and pointed it out. “Did you do that this morning?” she observed matter-of-factly. “No dear…3 weeks ago”. “Oh…”
Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.
Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.
All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?
Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.
No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.
I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.
So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.
Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.
Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.
All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?
Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.
No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.
I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.
So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.
Monday, January 10, 2011
It Isn't About the Fringe
The fact that Christine Taylor Green was born on September 11, 2001 is purely coincidental to the tragedy that took her life in Tucson, Arizona. And yet the relevance of those two events is so compelling that it is difficult not to think of the end of her short life as some kind of dark metaphor.
In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.
The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.
Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.
The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.
Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.
With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.
The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.
In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.
The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.
Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.
The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.
Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.
With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.
The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Economic Fundamentalism
It is not hard to intellectually give fundamentalism a bad rap. Generally fundamentalism refers to an individual’s strict obedience to a specific set of theological doctrines. It can be found in behaviors ranging from Jihadist terrorism to Sarah Palin bromides. All it really means is that individuals apply certitudes to beliefs that are neither provable nor universally shared. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong; however, the inflexibility can create a whole host of conflicts, and historically has contributed to human tragedy on a massive scale from time to time. Certainly the ability to compromise one’s fundamental position can be a virtue in a world where the population of diverse believers has grown to nearly incomprehensible levels.
The same could be said of secular issues as well, in fact even more so. After all, fundamental theological or philosophical beliefs are based on axioms which are ultimately subjective or personal, while secular issues deal more with the nuts and bolts affecting everyday living…of everybody. The issues might include things like safety or education, but mostly they have to do with economics or, in other words, survival in this world, rather than the next. For people, or more importantly politicians, to take immovable positions on issues based on their fundamental economic beliefs (taxes bad, growth good, rich bad, equality good, etc) creates an inability to deal with dynamic changes and begs for common ground. So why do I find myself in such disagreement with President Obama’s recent pronouncement of a negotiated “compromise” with the Republican caucus?
The President angrily (angry for him anyway) derided his fellow Democrat critics for not understanding the importance of compromise. Although Obama’s agreement may at first blush appeared inconsistent with his pronouncements both as a candidate and President, for anyone who read The Audacity of Hope he did what one might have expected him to do. Obama essentially declared in his treatise that the supreme value of leadership is when it breaks down intractable competition and in doing so moves the ball forward. His pragmatic approach to the Presidency (with congressional majorities) has been painfully consistent with his book. I believe, unfortunately, he got it backwards. Leadership that seeks to and ultimately unifies has value only after the fact, after it's got the job done...not before. It is the old Neville Chamberlain predicament…what sounds like a duck isn’t necessarily a duck. I suspect a few clever Republicans read Obama’s book and put two and two together.
The divisiveness of the Obama compromise was immediately apparent and I feel de facto evidence of failure to meet his proclaimed goal of moving the ball forward. The Democrats in Congress have been as fractured in their approach to governing over the last four years as the Republicans have been eerily solidified. Reacting as they did made them appear like a colony of meerkats all popping up and suddenly looking in the same direction with equal surprise. That doesn’t happen often for Democrats. Are they wrong? Am I wrong in agreeing with them? Just what is wrong with this compromise?
Don’t believe for a second that the Republican line-in-the-sand on taxation of the wealthy was anything other than political. The sound bite which says returning the top bracket to Clinton era levels would adversely affect employment (which was woefully embraced by the conservative uninformed) boarders on lunacy. There is virtually no evidence (nor educated speculation) that such would be the case. Democrats suggested raising the threshold to a million dollars which the Republican leadership immediately rejected. It could have been raised to a billion dollars of taxable income (which actually only effects a handful of people) and the Republicans wouldn’t have budged, even if every affected billionaire lined up in support of the tax. The so-called fiscally responsible Republican conservatives, whose number one stated goal is to make Obama a one-term President, wanted tax increases tagged to the Obama Administration..period. It was win-win for the Republicans as far as they were concerned, “compromise” or not. If the plan goes through as agreed upon Obama will have to campaign as a President who, if elected, will spearhead tax increases. Christmas came early for the GOP.
Obama’s real choice was also a real opportunity to salvage his Presidency, which I have reluctantly come to believe needs salvaging. He had the opportunity to tell the truth. A position does not fall under the general heading of fundamentalism when there is universal agreement. We don’t know specifically what the consequences of running continuous and mountainous deficits and compiling astronomical debt will be. However, we can all agree that they will be very bad and we as a nation will regret that we didn’t do anything about it. As such Obama was in a unique position to earn his Nobel Prize by risking his Presidency and telling the nation (and therefore the world) that it has to spend less and it has to pay currently, through taxes, for what it is spending (on everything including entitlements and wars of every kind). He should have embraced the termination of the Bush tax cuts, not just for the rich, but for everyone. That’s what a unifying President would have done, instead of arguing that the goodies we got are equal to the goodies they got. The published fears that the short term result would have stalled the “recovery” were speculative at best and not worthy of compromising the truth. I don’t believe it at all. By opposing both Republicans and Democrats on taxation and spending and demanding an era of national responsibility he had the prospect of being the unifier he truly wants to be. Instead, he has become an instrument of continued divisiveness.
The most important thing I took out of my studies as an Economics major in college was that Economics is a social science, not an exact science. Because it is merely an accounting of human behavior the ability of Government to affect it directly is very limited. What this economy needs more than anything else is to regain predictability. That will probably happen when the housing market stabilizes, if the national debt doesn’t do us in first. Predictability is always enhanced by the truth. The near-term economy will not be significantly improved or worsened by increased taxation or reduced spending. Consumer Confidence is the index that trumps them both. However, the long term health of our Economy will be significantly affected by how we apply both taxes and spending. The fights and compromises regarding social support or the widening gap between the haves and have-nots could have waited. For this round it was Economic Fundamentalism 1, Truth 0.
The same could be said of secular issues as well, in fact even more so. After all, fundamental theological or philosophical beliefs are based on axioms which are ultimately subjective or personal, while secular issues deal more with the nuts and bolts affecting everyday living…of everybody. The issues might include things like safety or education, but mostly they have to do with economics or, in other words, survival in this world, rather than the next. For people, or more importantly politicians, to take immovable positions on issues based on their fundamental economic beliefs (taxes bad, growth good, rich bad, equality good, etc) creates an inability to deal with dynamic changes and begs for common ground. So why do I find myself in such disagreement with President Obama’s recent pronouncement of a negotiated “compromise” with the Republican caucus?
The President angrily (angry for him anyway) derided his fellow Democrat critics for not understanding the importance of compromise. Although Obama’s agreement may at first blush appeared inconsistent with his pronouncements both as a candidate and President, for anyone who read The Audacity of Hope he did what one might have expected him to do. Obama essentially declared in his treatise that the supreme value of leadership is when it breaks down intractable competition and in doing so moves the ball forward. His pragmatic approach to the Presidency (with congressional majorities) has been painfully consistent with his book. I believe, unfortunately, he got it backwards. Leadership that seeks to and ultimately unifies has value only after the fact, after it's got the job done...not before. It is the old Neville Chamberlain predicament…what sounds like a duck isn’t necessarily a duck. I suspect a few clever Republicans read Obama’s book and put two and two together.
The divisiveness of the Obama compromise was immediately apparent and I feel de facto evidence of failure to meet his proclaimed goal of moving the ball forward. The Democrats in Congress have been as fractured in their approach to governing over the last four years as the Republicans have been eerily solidified. Reacting as they did made them appear like a colony of meerkats all popping up and suddenly looking in the same direction with equal surprise. That doesn’t happen often for Democrats. Are they wrong? Am I wrong in agreeing with them? Just what is wrong with this compromise?
Don’t believe for a second that the Republican line-in-the-sand on taxation of the wealthy was anything other than political. The sound bite which says returning the top bracket to Clinton era levels would adversely affect employment (which was woefully embraced by the conservative uninformed) boarders on lunacy. There is virtually no evidence (nor educated speculation) that such would be the case. Democrats suggested raising the threshold to a million dollars which the Republican leadership immediately rejected. It could have been raised to a billion dollars of taxable income (which actually only effects a handful of people) and the Republicans wouldn’t have budged, even if every affected billionaire lined up in support of the tax. The so-called fiscally responsible Republican conservatives, whose number one stated goal is to make Obama a one-term President, wanted tax increases tagged to the Obama Administration..period. It was win-win for the Republicans as far as they were concerned, “compromise” or not. If the plan goes through as agreed upon Obama will have to campaign as a President who, if elected, will spearhead tax increases. Christmas came early for the GOP.
Obama’s real choice was also a real opportunity to salvage his Presidency, which I have reluctantly come to believe needs salvaging. He had the opportunity to tell the truth. A position does not fall under the general heading of fundamentalism when there is universal agreement. We don’t know specifically what the consequences of running continuous and mountainous deficits and compiling astronomical debt will be. However, we can all agree that they will be very bad and we as a nation will regret that we didn’t do anything about it. As such Obama was in a unique position to earn his Nobel Prize by risking his Presidency and telling the nation (and therefore the world) that it has to spend less and it has to pay currently, through taxes, for what it is spending (on everything including entitlements and wars of every kind). He should have embraced the termination of the Bush tax cuts, not just for the rich, but for everyone. That’s what a unifying President would have done, instead of arguing that the goodies we got are equal to the goodies they got. The published fears that the short term result would have stalled the “recovery” were speculative at best and not worthy of compromising the truth. I don’t believe it at all. By opposing both Republicans and Democrats on taxation and spending and demanding an era of national responsibility he had the prospect of being the unifier he truly wants to be. Instead, he has become an instrument of continued divisiveness.
The most important thing I took out of my studies as an Economics major in college was that Economics is a social science, not an exact science. Because it is merely an accounting of human behavior the ability of Government to affect it directly is very limited. What this economy needs more than anything else is to regain predictability. That will probably happen when the housing market stabilizes, if the national debt doesn’t do us in first. Predictability is always enhanced by the truth. The near-term economy will not be significantly improved or worsened by increased taxation or reduced spending. Consumer Confidence is the index that trumps them both. However, the long term health of our Economy will be significantly affected by how we apply both taxes and spending. The fights and compromises regarding social support or the widening gap between the haves and have-nots could have waited. For this round it was Economic Fundamentalism 1, Truth 0.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Mannequin Candidate
I wondered recently what would be born of combining the suspense thriller The Manchurian Candidate with the Old Navy commercials featuring the “talking” mannequins. The story The Manchurian Candidate, made famous by a bestselling Cold War novel in 1959 by Richard Condon and later into a 1962 John Frankenheimer movie (with a 2004 re-make), combines the ruthless ambitions of a politician and his wife with their brainwashed son in a plot to catapult themselves to national political power. The Old Navy commercials, on the other hand (which I hope you’ve seen), allow dummies to engage in pithy conversation without any moving parts (each time I’m unfortunate enough to see one I’m compelled to grumble – Go Army!). Merging those two concepts together, however, I was awakened to something which is far more real than the sum of its fictional parts, namely: the yet again candidacy of Eric Cantor.
Cantor has climbed the ladder of political power almost entirely unnoticed, even by the constituents in his own Virginia 7th Congressional District (which happens to be mine as well). Like Lawrence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, Cantor was picked, planted, and pruned for a specific purpose. In Eric's case it was advancement in the Republican Party. He has succeeded by happily remaining in the shadows, displaying unswerving loyalty, and not adding a ripple to a Congressional sea beset by frequent political maelstroms. He has risen nose cleaning to an art form.
In his nearly 10 years in Congress he has individually sponsored only 39 harmless and non-descript bills, 5 were taken semi-seriously and made it out of Committee, and only 2 became law. What were those laws? One was allowing the use of the Capitol Rotunda as part of a Holocaust commemoration; the second was having a Richmond, VA Post Office building named after his retired benefactor Rep Tom Bliley. That’s about as close as you can get to an Old Navy commercial in the US House of Representatives.
It now appears, however, that he may be ready to make his move, and not simply by looking over John Boehner’s shoulder during some “Hell NO” soliloquy. He has made the bold move of trying to distance himself from the Republican establishment, that establishment which is under fire by a hodgepodge of extreme positions by Christian Conservatives and Libertarian wannabes. He and a couple of Congressional supporters have labeled themselves the Young Guns in an attempt to be the bridge that crosses the murky sludge of the Bush Administration linking the land of Ronald Reagan with a Krispy Kreme Republican future – all puffy and sweet. If he succeeds and overthrows the establishment Boehner, he could end up Speaker of the House and be just two heart beats away from the White House. Only in America.
It is altogether appropriate that Eric Cantor chose to name his “gang” the Young Guns. At age 47 he more or less qualifies for the “young” part of the title, especially if you place him next to Mitch McConnell for example. It’s the “Guns” part I find intriguing…and revealing.
I can almost see Cantor bursting into the House of Representatives, followed by Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) walking abreast, all three sporting black leather motorcycle jackets with the arched name YOUNG GUNS emblazoned on the back…maybe beneath it a picture of teacup filled with bullets and the phrase Death To Taxes. They march down to the front of the assembly, pull out their paintball pistols and announce that the People can no longer wait to be heard. In seconds the opposition is left cowering in a pool of Republican red paint and the Young Guns stride away to quickly check their poll numbers.
I have lived in Virginia’s solidly Conservative and Republican 7th Congressional District for 29 years and therefore have been witness to the evolution of a politician who epitomizes the absence of substance in today’s political environment. Eric Cantor has worked his entire adult life in politics with the single aim of personal advancement. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, as long as his constituents know that’s all they’re electing – public service be damned.
As an undergraduate student in college his family connections got him the job as intern and later as driver for his predecessor’s (Thomas J Bliley, Jr.) during Bliley’s second campaign for Congress in our district. Immediately after Cantor’s extensive schooling (one undergraduate and two graduate degrees) he began his first campaign running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, with the help of his mentor Bliley (by then a popular Congressman), at the age of 28. There he was tucked away until Bliley’s announced retirement and the official anointing of Cantor.
Cantor was easily elected to the House in 2000 and entered Congress pre-ordained. Roy Blunt (R-MO) made the new younger gun Chief Deputy Republican Whip in only his second year, a laurel almost unheard of in a rookie’s career and for no particular reason, except perhaps that young Cantor was sufficiently dashing and by 2002 was the only Jewish Republican in Congress (a fact that persists still).
He has spent the decade successfully working the Republican establishment like a Roman column, providing a lot of internal support even while his presence was inert. It’s doubtful he could have done it any other way since despite his American Dad smile, tanned features, and artful coiffure he’s a terrible speaker. The grooming of Eric Cantor has worked flawlessly…provided he didn’t open his mouth. Unfortunately his delivery sounds a lot like a whiny car salesman, the hearing impaired reading closed captioning of his interviews are probably far more impressed.
So, establishment Republicans, like John Boehner, are in a bit of a sticky situation. On one side they have allowed in grizzly bears (mama and otherwise) who appear content to eat red meat as well as blue, and on the other side they face competition within their own family, from those like Eric Cantor et al, who have concluded that the only real winners in the French Revolution were those who didn’t get their heads chopped off.
Alas, Eric Cantor is no Napoleon Bonaparte, except perhaps like the one that resides in Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum. Like the evil politician in The Manchurian Candidate, who is eventually foiled by his nutso son, it is unlikely that Cantor will rise to national prominence, but it likely will be by his own inanimate doing.
In the opening chapter of his recent book Young Guns Cantor writes (with his two underlings) a verbatim recollection of a conversation the three of them had over “diet cokes and bottled water” in the commissary specifically on March 11, 2010 (I guess they always have the tapes rolling). In it Cantor says; “I think enough members finally realized that the level of frustration among the public is at a fever pitch right now that we had no choice. We had to say enough is enough.” They talk about “…corruption in the Republican Party when we had the majority”, and “We have to declare our principles (which) are the Nation’s founding principles”, a prophetic “We have new blood coming in here”, and (of course) Greek mythology. It could all be howling good copy for a John Stewart skit, but I see it more as a painfully extended Old Navy commercial with perhaps Eric’s last line being “...oh and Kevin, I just love the elephants on your tie.” It’s just too bad that the people of Virginia’s 7th Congressional District have to keep rerunning it every two years.
Cantor has climbed the ladder of political power almost entirely unnoticed, even by the constituents in his own Virginia 7th Congressional District (which happens to be mine as well). Like Lawrence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, Cantor was picked, planted, and pruned for a specific purpose. In Eric's case it was advancement in the Republican Party. He has succeeded by happily remaining in the shadows, displaying unswerving loyalty, and not adding a ripple to a Congressional sea beset by frequent political maelstroms. He has risen nose cleaning to an art form.
In his nearly 10 years in Congress he has individually sponsored only 39 harmless and non-descript bills, 5 were taken semi-seriously and made it out of Committee, and only 2 became law. What were those laws? One was allowing the use of the Capitol Rotunda as part of a Holocaust commemoration; the second was having a Richmond, VA Post Office building named after his retired benefactor Rep Tom Bliley. That’s about as close as you can get to an Old Navy commercial in the US House of Representatives.
It now appears, however, that he may be ready to make his move, and not simply by looking over John Boehner’s shoulder during some “Hell NO” soliloquy. He has made the bold move of trying to distance himself from the Republican establishment, that establishment which is under fire by a hodgepodge of extreme positions by Christian Conservatives and Libertarian wannabes. He and a couple of Congressional supporters have labeled themselves the Young Guns in an attempt to be the bridge that crosses the murky sludge of the Bush Administration linking the land of Ronald Reagan with a Krispy Kreme Republican future – all puffy and sweet. If he succeeds and overthrows the establishment Boehner, he could end up Speaker of the House and be just two heart beats away from the White House. Only in America.
It is altogether appropriate that Eric Cantor chose to name his “gang” the Young Guns. At age 47 he more or less qualifies for the “young” part of the title, especially if you place him next to Mitch McConnell for example. It’s the “Guns” part I find intriguing…and revealing.
I can almost see Cantor bursting into the House of Representatives, followed by Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) walking abreast, all three sporting black leather motorcycle jackets with the arched name YOUNG GUNS emblazoned on the back…maybe beneath it a picture of teacup filled with bullets and the phrase Death To Taxes. They march down to the front of the assembly, pull out their paintball pistols and announce that the People can no longer wait to be heard. In seconds the opposition is left cowering in a pool of Republican red paint and the Young Guns stride away to quickly check their poll numbers.
I have lived in Virginia’s solidly Conservative and Republican 7th Congressional District for 29 years and therefore have been witness to the evolution of a politician who epitomizes the absence of substance in today’s political environment. Eric Cantor has worked his entire adult life in politics with the single aim of personal advancement. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, as long as his constituents know that’s all they’re electing – public service be damned.
As an undergraduate student in college his family connections got him the job as intern and later as driver for his predecessor’s (Thomas J Bliley, Jr.) during Bliley’s second campaign for Congress in our district. Immediately after Cantor’s extensive schooling (one undergraduate and two graduate degrees) he began his first campaign running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, with the help of his mentor Bliley (by then a popular Congressman), at the age of 28. There he was tucked away until Bliley’s announced retirement and the official anointing of Cantor.
Cantor was easily elected to the House in 2000 and entered Congress pre-ordained. Roy Blunt (R-MO) made the new younger gun Chief Deputy Republican Whip in only his second year, a laurel almost unheard of in a rookie’s career and for no particular reason, except perhaps that young Cantor was sufficiently dashing and by 2002 was the only Jewish Republican in Congress (a fact that persists still).
He has spent the decade successfully working the Republican establishment like a Roman column, providing a lot of internal support even while his presence was inert. It’s doubtful he could have done it any other way since despite his American Dad smile, tanned features, and artful coiffure he’s a terrible speaker. The grooming of Eric Cantor has worked flawlessly…provided he didn’t open his mouth. Unfortunately his delivery sounds a lot like a whiny car salesman, the hearing impaired reading closed captioning of his interviews are probably far more impressed.
So, establishment Republicans, like John Boehner, are in a bit of a sticky situation. On one side they have allowed in grizzly bears (mama and otherwise) who appear content to eat red meat as well as blue, and on the other side they face competition within their own family, from those like Eric Cantor et al, who have concluded that the only real winners in the French Revolution were those who didn’t get their heads chopped off.
Alas, Eric Cantor is no Napoleon Bonaparte, except perhaps like the one that resides in Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum. Like the evil politician in The Manchurian Candidate, who is eventually foiled by his nutso son, it is unlikely that Cantor will rise to national prominence, but it likely will be by his own inanimate doing.
In the opening chapter of his recent book Young Guns Cantor writes (with his two underlings) a verbatim recollection of a conversation the three of them had over “diet cokes and bottled water” in the commissary specifically on March 11, 2010 (I guess they always have the tapes rolling). In it Cantor says; “I think enough members finally realized that the level of frustration among the public is at a fever pitch right now that we had no choice. We had to say enough is enough.” They talk about “…corruption in the Republican Party when we had the majority”, and “We have to declare our principles (which) are the Nation’s founding principles”, a prophetic “We have new blood coming in here”, and (of course) Greek mythology. It could all be howling good copy for a John Stewart skit, but I see it more as a painfully extended Old Navy commercial with perhaps Eric’s last line being “...oh and Kevin, I just love the elephants on your tie.” It’s just too bad that the people of Virginia’s 7th Congressional District have to keep rerunning it every two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
