For anyone in California out there or who has a familiarity with commuter life in L.A., I wanted to draw your attention to Freakonomics' latest series on facts and fiction about commuting in L.A.
Most people think of L.A. as the smoggiest, over-freewayed, crappiest-public-transportation-having quagmire in the world. Maybe so, but maybe not. Here's the last installment in the series (that also provides links to the previous articles) to let you know how things really are.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Lessons from the Future of Evangelical America
The Christian Science Monitor put out an article (thanks, Drudge, for calling it to my attention) regarding the potential demise of mainstream Evangelical Christianity in America.
The author predicts that "millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline.... The grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close."
It's a bit bleak but brings out some interesting premises that I'd like to put out there:
1. Too much attention to causes can drive the focus away from the faith. The author cites attention to gay marriage and pro life and other cultural/moral issues as a significant cause for a generation to be able to articulate their religions on viewpoints such as these but still be unable to succinctly explain their faith.
I personally struggle with the line between proper expression of the cultural application of moral viewpoints with a need to merely exemplify correct principles and allow for a measure of agency in those around me, particularly as doctrinal tenets become a question of public policy.
2. A certain measure of orthodoxy is required for a religion to have any kind of roots. Joseph Smith's comments that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things will never generate faith sufficient unto salvation comes to mind.
I'm always grateful that I grew up in a faith that holds its youth to high standards while never slacking on the teaching of scripture and basic doctrine. I never felt that, for example, being encouraged to wear white shirts on Sundays and not drink Coke overpowered instruction on faith, the Atonement, and scripture.
The author predicts that "millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline.... The grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close."
It's a bit bleak but brings out some interesting premises that I'd like to put out there:
1. Too much attention to causes can drive the focus away from the faith. The author cites attention to gay marriage and pro life and other cultural/moral issues as a significant cause for a generation to be able to articulate their religions on viewpoints such as these but still be unable to succinctly explain their faith.
I personally struggle with the line between proper expression of the cultural application of moral viewpoints with a need to merely exemplify correct principles and allow for a measure of agency in those around me, particularly as doctrinal tenets become a question of public policy.
2. A certain measure of orthodoxy is required for a religion to have any kind of roots. Joseph Smith's comments that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things will never generate faith sufficient unto salvation comes to mind.
I'm always grateful that I grew up in a faith that holds its youth to high standards while never slacking on the teaching of scripture and basic doctrine. I never felt that, for example, being encouraged to wear white shirts on Sundays and not drink Coke overpowered instruction on faith, the Atonement, and scripture.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Inspire Me, Mr. President
[As usual, this article can be found here at timetokeepscore.com]
This article from the WSJ raised a different critique of how the President is handling the stimulus, and it begs the question: where are the politics of hope?
The President's ability, unique among all other political leaders in the nation, to be a lone voice of policy and to so capture the public attention gives the office an enormous power to frame the issues and the debate. The article points to how the President's rhetoric in pushing for Congressional support of the stimulus paints the current economic crisis as the worst since the Great Depression.
The basic formula for President Obama's pleas is, "If we don't pass this stimulus right now, the next Great Depression will come."
I'm not a fan, especially since the average consumer's ability to spend hasn't changed too much, and his or her desire to do so is based largely on their outlook for the future. Barack ran a masterful campaign full of positive imagery and inspiring messages.
Although they were a bit lofty and dangerously vague and misleading for my taste, I can't deny the man's ability to move a room, though he does tend to fare better in a room already prone to love him. I'd love to see him change his tone from "If we don't pass this stimulus now, the Greater Depression will come," to:
"We can get out of this. We will get out of this. Hang in there. Have faith in America's innovation, its ability to push beyond temporary difficulties. Though for many of us these times have brought and will continue to bring hardship that seems impossible to bear. The rest of us need to pick up the slack and find ways to support those in need. In the meantime, we feel that this stimulus package is the best shot we have to help right the economic ship while leaving behind a footprint of valuable programs [aside: I personally argue with that notion, but that's at least what he's trying to argue] to benefit an America struggling and an America prosperous."
Anyway, I call on the President to see through his campaign of inspiration. I didn't vote for you, Barack, but I'm waiting to be inspired.
[Read the article for some of the key facts around which the President may be slightly guilty of hyperbole, and the economic reasons why this is counterproductive though there may be a political upside. Okay, really guilty of hyperbole. Also, I caught an article last week but can't find it that discussed how, in one of many instances where Dubya just couldn't win, he attempted early in his presidency to paint how much trouble our economy was in post-9/11 and was accused of fear-mongering, and while afterward when he responded with unrelenting optimism he was accused of ignoring the 'horrible truth,' but I can't find it. Anyone catch that article and can post a link to it?]
This article from the WSJ raised a different critique of how the President is handling the stimulus, and it begs the question: where are the politics of hope?
The President's ability, unique among all other political leaders in the nation, to be a lone voice of policy and to so capture the public attention gives the office an enormous power to frame the issues and the debate. The article points to how the President's rhetoric in pushing for Congressional support of the stimulus paints the current economic crisis as the worst since the Great Depression.
The basic formula for President Obama's pleas is, "If we don't pass this stimulus right now, the next Great Depression will come."
I'm not a fan, especially since the average consumer's ability to spend hasn't changed too much, and his or her desire to do so is based largely on their outlook for the future. Barack ran a masterful campaign full of positive imagery and inspiring messages.
Although they were a bit lofty and dangerously vague and misleading for my taste, I can't deny the man's ability to move a room, though he does tend to fare better in a room already prone to love him. I'd love to see him change his tone from "If we don't pass this stimulus now, the Greater Depression will come," to:
"We can get out of this. We will get out of this. Hang in there. Have faith in America's innovation, its ability to push beyond temporary difficulties. Though for many of us these times have brought and will continue to bring hardship that seems impossible to bear. The rest of us need to pick up the slack and find ways to support those in need. In the meantime, we feel that this stimulus package is the best shot we have to help right the economic ship while leaving behind a footprint of valuable programs [aside: I personally argue with that notion, but that's at least what he's trying to argue] to benefit an America struggling and an America prosperous."
Anyway, I call on the President to see through his campaign of inspiration. I didn't vote for you, Barack, but I'm waiting to be inspired.
[Read the article for some of the key facts around which the President may be slightly guilty of hyperbole, and the economic reasons why this is counterproductive though there may be a political upside. Okay, really guilty of hyperbole. Also, I caught an article last week but can't find it that discussed how, in one of many instances where Dubya just couldn't win, he attempted early in his presidency to paint how much trouble our economy was in post-9/11 and was accused of fear-mongering, and while afterward when he responded with unrelenting optimism he was accused of ignoring the 'horrible truth,' but I can't find it. Anyone catch that article and can post a link to it?]
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bipartisanship Under Obama
(As always, this post can also be found at www.timetokeepscore.com. You're invited to post your comments there as well as you'll probably get a bit more feedback and interplay there.)
I've been vexed of late as to whether GOP leadership will merely slide into the role that the Dems held under Bush, whether they will sell out their conservative heritage and just be "softly" liberal, or whether they will push conservative solutions that are viable alternatives to some of Obama's more frighteningly liberal agenda.
Mickey Edwards, a player in the Reagan administration and co-founded the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times this week in which he stated:
If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.
I maintain that "doing nothing" is exactly what the Dems did as a minority and then a majority during the problems of the Bush era. If the GOP wants to be a relevant player, it needs to eschew that tendency. And President Obama, with all his talk of unity and inclusion, needs to publicly and quickly take Dem leaders to the woodshed for any inkling of taunting, exclusion, and pettiness.
Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from platforms that are,
anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.
Further,
They [must cease] to worship small government and [turn] their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.
The fact is, President Obama has as much potential to support conservative solutions as he does liberal ones. He's a family man, he's religious, he's a self-made man, he has stated that he opposes same-sex marriages (though he's been a bit confusing on that one), and the liberal voting base of the poor, the minorities, etc. will be just as likely to embrace conservative solutions as they are liberal ones, as long as they are solutions.
I believe that those solutions exist. What I'm frustrated with is GOP leadership's lack of ability to push those forward.
I've been vexed of late as to whether GOP leadership will merely slide into the role that the Dems held under Bush, whether they will sell out their conservative heritage and just be "softly" liberal, or whether they will push conservative solutions that are viable alternatives to some of Obama's more frighteningly liberal agenda.
Mickey Edwards, a player in the Reagan administration and co-founded the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times this week in which he stated:
If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.
I maintain that "doing nothing" is exactly what the Dems did as a minority and then a majority during the problems of the Bush era. If the GOP wants to be a relevant player, it needs to eschew that tendency. And President Obama, with all his talk of unity and inclusion, needs to publicly and quickly take Dem leaders to the woodshed for any inkling of taunting, exclusion, and pettiness.
Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from platforms that are,
anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.
Further,
They [must cease] to worship small government and [turn] their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.
The fact is, President Obama has as much potential to support conservative solutions as he does liberal ones. He's a family man, he's religious, he's a self-made man, he has stated that he opposes same-sex marriages (though he's been a bit confusing on that one), and the liberal voting base of the poor, the minorities, etc. will be just as likely to embrace conservative solutions as they are liberal ones, as long as they are solutions.
I believe that those solutions exist. What I'm frustrated with is GOP leadership's lack of ability to push those forward.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rise Up, O Legislative Branch
So Ms. Pelosi is excited to finally be able to get to work now that the "10 pound anvil" of Bush's presidency was removed from her head via Marine One.
Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.
A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.
When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.
I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.
Please check out what my fellow participants at www.timetokeepscore.com may have to say about this and other issues.
Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.
A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.
When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.
I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.
Please check out what my fellow participants at www.timetokeepscore.com may have to say about this and other issues.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
God Bless OUr President
He needs it. Look at the toll a presidency can take on a man.
Dubya, 2000
Dubya, 2008
Slick Willy, 1992
Slick Willy, 2000
Bush Senior, 1988
Bush Senior, 1992
Ronnie, 1980
Ronnie, 1988 (granted, he started out pretty old and has the benefit of quite a bit of hair dye, but still...)
Mr. Lincoln, circa 1860
Mr. Lincoln, 1864 (tough to tell with the black and white, but he aged significantly during his four years)
Dubya, 2000
Dubya, 2008
Slick Willy, 1992
Slick Willy, 2000
Bush Senior, 1988
Bush Senior, 1992
Ronnie, 1980
Ronnie, 1988 (granted, he started out pretty old and has the benefit of quite a bit of hair dye, but still...)
Mr. Lincoln, circa 1860
Mr. Lincoln, 1864 (tough to tell with the black and white, but he aged significantly during his four years)
Post-Racist America?
It recently came to my attention that I may have a reader or two out there. Thank you. :) I've been quiet of late mostly because of finals and travel, but also because I've been invited to contribute to another blog, www.timetokeepscore.com.
So, I'll post to both blogs concurrently until I figure out how else to handle these things.
Here's my most recent post from Time to Keep Score:
I'd like to ask the question, what is the true current state of racial affairs in America today? The question isn't a particularly easy one as metrics are difficult to come by, but I was intrigued by both a recent L.A. Times article (from the left) and your usual brand of right-wing-radio crackpot suggesting that the State of Race Relations in the Union is much stronger than is commonly believed.
It took moving to Texas as a kid to gain some level of understanding of how "the rest of the country" operates racially. Growing up in a fairly diverse yet economically strong area in Southern California, my racial viewpoint was shaped by a school experience with no strong racial majority and few socio-economic divisions. Even witnessing some of what the South has to offer to the racial outlook of the country, I've always had a skepticism towards the state of racial relations.
President Obama's election certainly has shown to the world that an individual who is not a WASP can be elected to one of the highest seats of power in the world. I've heard of polling data (sorry for no citation, I'll work on that) suggesting that 95% of Republicans would have gladly voted for a black person to be President if that person happened to have been a Republican also.
So are we living in a Post-Racist America? Are the problems related to race largely perpetuated and exaggerated by those with an agenda for doing so? (I'm talking to you, Jesse and Al.) I honestly can't say, but I suspect that, for the most part, White America on the racial side and Prosperous America on the economic side are more than happy to leave the door open for Minority or Poor America to enter in. And I hope they do.
So, I'll post to both blogs concurrently until I figure out how else to handle these things.
Here's my most recent post from Time to Keep Score:
I'd like to ask the question, what is the true current state of racial affairs in America today? The question isn't a particularly easy one as metrics are difficult to come by, but I was intrigued by both a recent L.A. Times article (from the left) and your usual brand of right-wing-radio crackpot suggesting that the State of Race Relations in the Union is much stronger than is commonly believed.
It took moving to Texas as a kid to gain some level of understanding of how "the rest of the country" operates racially. Growing up in a fairly diverse yet economically strong area in Southern California, my racial viewpoint was shaped by a school experience with no strong racial majority and few socio-economic divisions. Even witnessing some of what the South has to offer to the racial outlook of the country, I've always had a skepticism towards the state of racial relations.
President Obama's election certainly has shown to the world that an individual who is not a WASP can be elected to one of the highest seats of power in the world. I've heard of polling data (sorry for no citation, I'll work on that) suggesting that 95% of Republicans would have gladly voted for a black person to be President if that person happened to have been a Republican also.
So are we living in a Post-Racist America? Are the problems related to race largely perpetuated and exaggerated by those with an agenda for doing so? (I'm talking to you, Jesse and Al.) I honestly can't say, but I suspect that, for the most part, White America on the racial side and Prosperous America on the economic side are more than happy to leave the door open for Minority or Poor America to enter in. And I hope they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
