This was developed as a script for the Moveon.org "Obama in 30 Seconds" contest, but not produced:
(Still photos with pans over the pictures. Obama making speeches, audiences listening attentively, and so on.)
They say he speaks too well: it can’t be real.
They say his vision is too good: it can’t be practical.
They say he won’t fight back: not tough enough.
They say he should abandon his friends: he won’t.
They say a Chicago politician can’t be trusted: he's risky.
They say judgement is not enough: he lacks experience.
Eloquence, vision, dignity, loyalty, character, judgement: The right kind of experience.
Obama for President
Monday, April 14, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Why not Hillary Clinton?
Iraq: Her initial vote to authorize the Iraq war can be understood: a large majority of the Senate voted the same way. What is harder to understand is her consistent defense of that vote for the next three years, long after it was apparent that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even today, during the primary campaign, she has resisted stating that her vote was a mistake, instead saying that the issue was more complex than people appreciated. And, after initially refusing to commit to troop withdrawal by the end of her first term (January 2013), she toughened her position to be closer to Obama’s. Stubbornness and reluctance to admit a mistake?
Iran: Her subsequent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is much harder to understand. It was clear to many in Congress and the media that the White House was trying to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment, with little substance to back it up. The resolution was an obvious step toward military action against Iran, but she went along with it. Afraid to look weak?
On Iraq and Iran, has she been a fighter, standing up to the White House? No.
On Bush: On the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on domestic spying, on habeas corpus, on extraordinary rendition, on Abu Graib, on Guantanamo, has she been a fighter and a leader, standing up to the White House? No.
On the primary campaign: For over one year in the primary campaign, she focused on her experience as the reason to vote for her: she failed to convince voters in many states. Having failed to sweep the primaries on her experience, she turned to attacking her opponents. Her campaign has subtly but clearly played the race card in recent months, too. The negative approach has helped her, but at a cost: is it Presidential to mock and attack one’s opponents? Is this the behavior of someone who wants to unify and lead the whole country?
On experience: She has claimed 35 years of experience, virtually every day since she left school. Was every day truly an experience qualifying her for the Presidency? She has claimed a major role in negotiating peace in Ireland: others now question the primacy of her role. She has claimed the lead role in enacting the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: others now question whether she really was the lead in Congress. More recently, her claim to have landed under sniper fire in Kosovo simply turned out to be false, a story she has used several times during this campaign. Has she tended to exaggerate her roles and experience? Yes. Does this promote trust and appreciation for her integrity? No.
So, why not Hillary Clinton? For all of the above, for a history of waffling on issues, for her sense of outrage that anyone would challenge her claim to the Presidency, and in the end, for her lack of good judgement: No.
Iran: Her subsequent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is much harder to understand. It was clear to many in Congress and the media that the White House was trying to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment, with little substance to back it up. The resolution was an obvious step toward military action against Iran, but she went along with it. Afraid to look weak?
On Iraq and Iran, has she been a fighter, standing up to the White House? No.
On Bush: On the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on domestic spying, on habeas corpus, on extraordinary rendition, on Abu Graib, on Guantanamo, has she been a fighter and a leader, standing up to the White House? No.
On the primary campaign: For over one year in the primary campaign, she focused on her experience as the reason to vote for her: she failed to convince voters in many states. Having failed to sweep the primaries on her experience, she turned to attacking her opponents. Her campaign has subtly but clearly played the race card in recent months, too. The negative approach has helped her, but at a cost: is it Presidential to mock and attack one’s opponents? Is this the behavior of someone who wants to unify and lead the whole country?
On experience: She has claimed 35 years of experience, virtually every day since she left school. Was every day truly an experience qualifying her for the Presidency? She has claimed a major role in negotiating peace in Ireland: others now question the primacy of her role. She has claimed the lead role in enacting the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: others now question whether she really was the lead in Congress. More recently, her claim to have landed under sniper fire in Kosovo simply turned out to be false, a story she has used several times during this campaign. Has she tended to exaggerate her roles and experience? Yes. Does this promote trust and appreciation for her integrity? No.
So, why not Hillary Clinton? For all of the above, for a history of waffling on issues, for her sense of outrage that anyone would challenge her claim to the Presidency, and in the end, for her lack of good judgement: No.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Abolish the Property Tax!
Once upon a time, the property tax made some sense as a way to raise governmental revenue. Most property was agricultural, and generated wealth, in terms of animals, crops and cash. But that was long ago. Now, agricultural land is a tiny fraction of our economy, and wealth is more properly measured in cash income. The ability to pay taxes depends upon one’s income, not upon one’s holdings. That is why income tax is paid on stocks when sold, not on their value when held, for example.
It is important to distinguish between the need to raise governmental income, and the means to that end. In this, the property tax no longer makes much sense, and continues to produce many pernicious and unintended consequences.
The elderly, on fixed incomes, see their assessments and taxes rise, based upon the value of neighboring homes, which are sold. Their ability to pay typically does not increase, as they get no income from their home, and their demand upon services does not increase either. Why then, accept continued property tax increases, which force people with fixed incomes to sell their homes?
Farmers see their property taxes increase, not because of anything they do, but because assessments often are based upon the possibility of a more valuable use, eg, converting the farm into a subdivision.
Landlords experience the perverse result of increased property taxes, if they invest in property improvements.
These are extreme examples, perhaps, but everyone has felt the pinch of rising property taxes as unfair, as they are asked to pay more on an assessment of expected value, rather than upon real income.
The property tax is an unfair means to raise governmental income: abolish the property tax, and base state and local revenues upon the income tax, which most fairly tracks the ability to pay.
It is important to distinguish between the need to raise governmental income, and the means to that end. In this, the property tax no longer makes much sense, and continues to produce many pernicious and unintended consequences.
The elderly, on fixed incomes, see their assessments and taxes rise, based upon the value of neighboring homes, which are sold. Their ability to pay typically does not increase, as they get no income from their home, and their demand upon services does not increase either. Why then, accept continued property tax increases, which force people with fixed incomes to sell their homes?
Farmers see their property taxes increase, not because of anything they do, but because assessments often are based upon the possibility of a more valuable use, eg, converting the farm into a subdivision.
Landlords experience the perverse result of increased property taxes, if they invest in property improvements.
These are extreme examples, perhaps, but everyone has felt the pinch of rising property taxes as unfair, as they are asked to pay more on an assessment of expected value, rather than upon real income.
The property tax is an unfair means to raise governmental income: abolish the property tax, and base state and local revenues upon the income tax, which most fairly tracks the ability to pay.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Disinfectants and Public Health
Disinfectants: Marketing disinfectant products by raising public fear of bacteria runs counter to improved public health. We have evolved in a bacterial environment, and our immune systems depend upon bacterial infections to stay strong. Promoting a goal of 100% bacteria-free environments encourages disinfectant use. However, constant use will lead to resistant bacteria, and potentially great health hazards. Items such as antibacterial soaps in public wash rooms need to be banned, and people need to be told the truth about overuse of disinfectants.
Agricultural Reform
Monoculture: Intensive monoculture, or the use of only one crop variety, has become the main form of large-scale agriculture. While productivity can be high, the costs can be high, too. First, is increased soil erosion. Second, is pesticide dependency, as the pests favoring a single crop can establish themselves year-round. Third, is increased need for fertilizers. Fourth, is the loss of genetic diversity in using only one or a few different varieties of the crop. All of these costs compromise the long-term sustainability of farming.
It is important to reverse our dependency upon monoculture crops. Subsidies have to be eliminated for this kind of farming. Pesticide enforcement needs to be strengthened. Most important, genetic diversity needs to be promoted, or even required.
Factory Farming: Factory farming is heading for a dead end. Raising chickens and hogs, and fish and dairy farming under crowded conditions, increasingly rely upon constant low level doses of antibiotics. Unfortunately, such antibiotic use virtually guarantees development of resistant microbes, and increased cases of widespread disease. Rain runoff contaminated with low level antibiotics help to spread resistant organisms downstream. Farming methods which require constant antibiotic dosing need to be banned.
It is important to reverse our dependency upon monoculture crops. Subsidies have to be eliminated for this kind of farming. Pesticide enforcement needs to be strengthened. Most important, genetic diversity needs to be promoted, or even required.
Factory Farming: Factory farming is heading for a dead end. Raising chickens and hogs, and fish and dairy farming under crowded conditions, increasingly rely upon constant low level doses of antibiotics. Unfortunately, such antibiotic use virtually guarantees development of resistant microbes, and increased cases of widespread disease. Rain runoff contaminated with low level antibiotics help to spread resistant organisms downstream. Farming methods which require constant antibiotic dosing need to be banned.
Educational Reform
The country’s future depends upon properly educating its children, and we are not doing a very good job. While there have been many calls to improve our educational system, we have not yet succeeded. Here are a few modest proposals for such an improvement.
College has become too expensive for many otherwise qualified people. Our goal of equal opportunity is slipping away. Yet, a college education is more of a job requirement than ever. Every qualified student should be able to attend college.
The government should pay for college for anyone with good grades. In return, each student would commit to one year of public service for each year of college paid for. The overall program could be titled, “American Service Corps,” or ASC.
Early childhood is a time for children to learn by playing, but we subject them to discipline and passivity at ever earlier ages. We need pre-school and early school environments which allow children to follow their interests through play, well before imposing a rigid behavioral code on them. We need fun and opportunities for learning in the classroom, not more rigidity.
Elementary and High School structures tend to be lectures, but lectures are not efficient modes of learning. We think faster than we hear, meaning boredom and loss of attention are inevitable in lectures. Similarly, we learn more by doing than by sitting passively. We need to let go of the lecture as our prime teaching mechanism. Our school structures need to be more open to experimentation, and to more effective means of learning. The nation needs to begin wide-scale experimentation in alternatives to the current system.
College has become too expensive for many otherwise qualified people. Our goal of equal opportunity is slipping away. Yet, a college education is more of a job requirement than ever. Every qualified student should be able to attend college.
The government should pay for college for anyone with good grades. In return, each student would commit to one year of public service for each year of college paid for. The overall program could be titled, “American Service Corps,” or ASC.
Early childhood is a time for children to learn by playing, but we subject them to discipline and passivity at ever earlier ages. We need pre-school and early school environments which allow children to follow their interests through play, well before imposing a rigid behavioral code on them. We need fun and opportunities for learning in the classroom, not more rigidity.
Elementary and High School structures tend to be lectures, but lectures are not efficient modes of learning. We think faster than we hear, meaning boredom and loss of attention are inevitable in lectures. Similarly, we learn more by doing than by sitting passively. We need to let go of the lecture as our prime teaching mechanism. Our school structures need to be more open to experimentation, and to more effective means of learning. The nation needs to begin wide-scale experimentation in alternatives to the current system.
Corporate Accountability (2) Who Benefits from Bankruptcy?
Corporations essentially are creations of the state, by charter. It is an odd approach when the law currently provides for a corporation to be shielded from its creditors, in a bankruptcy. This places the interests of current executives and directors over those of their creditors, which is precisely what should not be allowed if they have failed in their fiduciary duties to the business. Those who go into bankruptcy should not be allowed to continue managing or profiting from the situation.
As such, corporate charters should be subject to revocation, in extreme cases, such as bankruptcy or gross violations of the law. Rather than close a business, however, states should be able to “condemn” such businesses, assume ownership, and auction them off to new owners and management. This would protect workers from the follies of executives, and provide income for the state.
As such, corporate charters should be subject to revocation, in extreme cases, such as bankruptcy or gross violations of the law. Rather than close a business, however, states should be able to “condemn” such businesses, assume ownership, and auction them off to new owners and management. This would protect workers from the follies of executives, and provide income for the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)