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.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Education and Barriers to Entry
NOTE: This post also appears here at Time To Keep Score, a blog to which I'm grateful to have been invited to contribute. There's a good group of writers over there. It's a good read and I recommend it highly. Now to the post...
As I'm neck deep in finals and my eyes are growing dark and hollow in a Gollum-like manner as I've confined myself to the indoors to study, this topic is particularly near and dear to my heart. As I interact more and more with attorneys, it's become clearer and clearer that law school serves two essential purposes to the profession it supposedly prepares students for: 1) give law firms some sort of cheap and easy way of rating applicants by looking at alma mater and GPA therein, and 2) big, fat, yet-sometimes-porous barrier to entry (I saw porous because I don't think I've heard any breaking news lately about the dearth of attorneys).
Almost every attorney I speak with either can't remember much of what they learned, and certainly can't remember the last time they used something they learned, yet we all must go through it. I've heard similar complaints of the medical profession and others, though I get the impression that it's a bit different for you MBA students and the like who pursue advanced education while working.
Certainly, 3 years and countless thousands of dollars is something of a barrier, but I think the largest barrier to entry in any profession is our country's overall education system. Add to those three years the 4 (or 5 for those like me who took their time) years of undergraduate study and to those the years of secondary education that did very little to prepare or motivate me towards my career choice, and we have a system that, in the name of general education (read "liberal arts"), does little to help young people funnel their way into fulfilling and meaningful careers and mostly just prolongs that moment, that very real and frightening moment, when you have to decide what you're going to do with your life.
If you're lucky, you get to have that moment. For many young people, that moment passes them by as they end up working ten years at a job they took after high school, "just to make some money before they figured out what else to do," with a very low ceiling and very few options. Can't we figure out a way to move the process along some?
I'll be 30 when I enter, as I said, the lowest rung of my professional ladder. Couldn't I have been working in a law office during high school summers, reviewing documents, learning the basics of Internet research and the nitty gritty of filing court papers? Couldn't I have bypassed all of that liberal arts education during my undergraduate years that was really just there to hold me over until law school?
Just a thought. And really, it has nothing to do with how sick of my finals I am. I promise.
As I'm neck deep in finals and my eyes are growing dark and hollow in a Gollum-like manner as I've confined myself to the indoors to study, this topic is particularly near and dear to my heart. As I interact more and more with attorneys, it's become clearer and clearer that law school serves two essential purposes to the profession it supposedly prepares students for: 1) give law firms some sort of cheap and easy way of rating applicants by looking at alma mater and GPA therein, and 2) big, fat, yet-sometimes-porous barrier to entry (I saw porous because I don't think I've heard any breaking news lately about the dearth of attorneys).
Almost every attorney I speak with either can't remember much of what they learned, and certainly can't remember the last time they used something they learned, yet we all must go through it. I've heard similar complaints of the medical profession and others, though I get the impression that it's a bit different for you MBA students and the like who pursue advanced education while working.
Certainly, 3 years and countless thousands of dollars is something of a barrier, but I think the largest barrier to entry in any profession is our country's overall education system. Add to those three years the 4 (or 5 for those like me who took their time) years of undergraduate study and to those the years of secondary education that did very little to prepare or motivate me towards my career choice, and we have a system that, in the name of general education (read "liberal arts"), does little to help young people funnel their way into fulfilling and meaningful careers and mostly just prolongs that moment, that very real and frightening moment, when you have to decide what you're going to do with your life.
If you're lucky, you get to have that moment. For many young people, that moment passes them by as they end up working ten years at a job they took after high school, "just to make some money before they figured out what else to do," with a very low ceiling and very few options. Can't we figure out a way to move the process along some?
I'll be 30 when I enter, as I said, the lowest rung of my professional ladder. Couldn't I have been working in a law office during high school summers, reviewing documents, learning the basics of Internet research and the nitty gritty of filing court papers? Couldn't I have bypassed all of that liberal arts education during my undergraduate years that was really just there to hold me over until law school?
Just a thought. And really, it has nothing to do with how sick of my finals I am. I promise.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Good Clip Explaining a Mormon's Experience
Thanks to my friends at timetokeepscore.blogspot.com for bringing this to my attention.
The following video is of a Harvard undergrad from Blackfoot, ID, who was given the opportunity to share her perspectives as a Latter-Day Saint as part of a larger panel discussion series on religion at Harvard.
It's very well done and she's asked some tough questions. She's not speaking officially for the Church in any way, but I feel that she does a very nice job of representing the Church's viewpoints and that her personal take can be useful for anyone who's curious. Enjoy and let me know if you have any questions.
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.
The following video is of a Harvard undergrad from Blackfoot, ID, who was given the opportunity to share her perspectives as a Latter-Day Saint as part of a larger panel discussion series on religion at Harvard.
It's very well done and she's asked some tough questions. She's not speaking officially for the Church in any way, but I feel that she does a very nice job of representing the Church's viewpoints and that her personal take can be useful for anyone who's curious. Enjoy and let me know if you have any questions.
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Next Time You Have 7 Digits of Disposable Income...
You might want to consider this purchase available at www.neimanmarcus.com.
Thanks to Jason Sobel of ESPN.com I now know that next time I have 7 digits to spend on something just for me, to say nothing of a yard big enough in which to build it, I can have Jack Nicklaus personally design a 3-hole practice course in my backyard. After designing it and supervising its construction, the Bear himself will even play a quick round with me.
Some of us can only dream the dream, I guess.
For those of us with a bit less to spend this Christmas, here's a nifty gift coming it at under 30 bucks. Apparently, it's real.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
What happens to leftover campaign donations?
I caught an article today in the Wall Street Journal (always sounds pretentious to start off any form of communication that way, doesn't it?) talking about President-Elect Obama's incoming donations for his inauguration ceremony. I think the whole notion is a bit ridiculous, but I certainly don't mean to single out the incoming administration as all incoming presidents have used their inauguration as a fund raising opportunity.
But anyway, my question is what exactly do they do with leftover campaign donations? Do they manage to spend every single cent of what's donated, planning down to the closing of the polls? Somehow I doubt it, and it's more likely that it's retained by the party or by the campaign, though I did hear that some of Obama's campaign staffers were to receive some somewhat lavish gifts when it was all over.
I guess that's okay, but given how much cash he ended up with and given how much he was able to point to all of the low-dollar donations from "average people," wouldn't it be somewhat patriotic of him and his campaign to hook up some of those folks who donated less than $500 with some of the leftover laptops and other swag from the campaign, to say nothing of at least a partial refund? Just a thought.
Seriously, though, if any of you know the law about surplus campaign funds I'd be curious to know. I've done some research on campaign finance reform but haven't ever seen that come up.
But anyway, my question is what exactly do they do with leftover campaign donations? Do they manage to spend every single cent of what's donated, planning down to the closing of the polls? Somehow I doubt it, and it's more likely that it's retained by the party or by the campaign, though I did hear that some of Obama's campaign staffers were to receive some somewhat lavish gifts when it was all over.
I guess that's okay, but given how much cash he ended up with and given how much he was able to point to all of the low-dollar donations from "average people," wouldn't it be somewhat patriotic of him and his campaign to hook up some of those folks who donated less than $500 with some of the leftover laptops and other swag from the campaign, to say nothing of at least a partial refund? Just a thought.
Seriously, though, if any of you know the law about surplus campaign funds I'd be curious to know. I've done some research on campaign finance reform but haven't ever seen that come up.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Interesting Situation on Campus
I know I'm not going to get a lot of pity from folks a bit more to the left, but there's an interesting situation on my campus that I find troubling. Of all the student organizations here at the law school, there are four that I would classify as right-leaning: the College Republicans and the Federalist Society on the political side, and the Christian Lawyers and J. Reuben Clark Law Society (Mormon Lawyers) on the at least facially apolitical or moral side.
The school's student organization governing body technically requires that any student organization have a faculty sponsor. Here's the interesting situation: not a single faculty member is willing to support any of those four organizations. Anecdotally, what few faculty members I know to have a rightward lean are unwilling to publicly present themselves as such for fear of peer ostracizing.
That about blew me away.
To a certain point, I'm willing to just cope with the fact that leftish viewpoints will largely dominate the personal persuasions of faculty members at most universities. It only allows faculty members who make objectivity and political neutrality in the name of open ideas that much more worthy of respect. But as more and more academic institutions and private enterprises make diversity a mission and a cause to be won, I'm not sure that this fits the bill. And when a university's career development center offers internship credit for volunteering as a pollwatcher for a specific party (I'll let you all guess which one) with no mention of the other, I'm concerned.
Isn't a university obligated to provide a friendly environment for people of any political persuasion? How far do we need to go to ensure that this happens?
Friday, November 14, 2008
It's OUR Job...
I came across this bit of numbers from Pew, and thought I'd pass this on. According to a recent study, 57% of Americans either mostly or completely agree that it's the government's job to care for the needy.
I want to clarify one thing. It's NOT the government's job to care for the needy. That implies that it's "someone else's" job. It's all of our jobs to care for the needy. All of us.
This is about as preachy as I'm willing to get, but I despise the notion that conservatives somehow have it in for the poor, the less fortunate, minorities in difficult situations, etc. when that's not usually the case. What is the case is that there is a strong mistrust of the government's ability to create and administer effective programs for the kind of relief that's needed that will most promote permanent extraction from a bad situation.
That being said, we cannot nor should not allow the existence of such problems to provide an excuse for not doing our part, nor should we assume that the government bears that responsibility alone. It's our job.
I want to clarify one thing. It's NOT the government's job to care for the needy. That implies that it's "someone else's" job. It's all of our jobs to care for the needy. All of us.
This is about as preachy as I'm willing to get, but I despise the notion that conservatives somehow have it in for the poor, the less fortunate, minorities in difficult situations, etc. when that's not usually the case. What is the case is that there is a strong mistrust of the government's ability to create and administer effective programs for the kind of relief that's needed that will most promote permanent extraction from a bad situation.
That being said, we cannot nor should not allow the existence of such problems to provide an excuse for not doing our part, nor should we assume that the government bears that responsibility alone. It's our job.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thougts on Mormons and Prop 8
There has been a bit of press lately covering both protests to the passing of California's Prop. 8 and the LDS Church's (Mormons') reaction thereto. I've followed the back and forth from afar as it's been several years since I've lived in California. But, I have sought out and appreciated the opportunity for good dialogue with friends who opposed Proposition 8, while at the same time saddened to hear of my niece's experiences being spat on and cursed at for supporting it.
There's not much that I can offer on the subject that hasn't already been both against (Stay classy, Roseanne) the Mormons' participating in Prop 8 and in defense thereof, but I would like to put out a few thoughts for those who are interested.
First off, although I'm bummed that the Mormons have become almost the sole face of Pro-Prop 8 California when the church itself paid out no institutional money in support of the proposition, when the anti-Prop 8 campaign was in total better-funded than the pro-Prop 8 campaign, when at best I figure there are 200,000* voters in California who are actively-practicing Mormons of voting age, I forced myself not to be surprised by that despite my initial bewilderment once I thought about how involved that extreme minority of voters became.
I can only hope that Mormons in California behaved themselves civilly and with class, if for no other reason than to do as little as possible to justify allegations of bigotry and intolerance that are being cast. I hope that pro-Prop 8 folks did and continue to follow the official direction given by the church with respect to the appropriate mode of support for that proposition.
What I do hope, most of all, is that we Mormons welcome the inevitable protests to Proposition 8 and other similar amendments nationwide as long as they are kept cordial and civil towards religious practice. The Mormon Church said this on the subject:
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
*My estimated number is based on the just under 800,000 Mormons in California. Figure only about half are actively-practicing, half of that half are under 18, and that's where I get to 200,000. It's a dirty method, but I don't know of nor could I find any information as to Mormon voter registry or turnout, though my suspicion is that it's not tremendously different than any other group of potential voters. Also, I know at least anecdotally of several Mormons who did not vote for Proposition 8 and I imagine that they are not terribly unique.
There's not much that I can offer on the subject that hasn't already been both against (Stay classy, Roseanne) the Mormons' participating in Prop 8 and in defense thereof, but I would like to put out a few thoughts for those who are interested.
First off, although I'm bummed that the Mormons have become almost the sole face of Pro-Prop 8 California when the church itself paid out no institutional money in support of the proposition, when the anti-Prop 8 campaign was in total better-funded than the pro-Prop 8 campaign, when at best I figure there are 200,000* voters in California who are actively-practicing Mormons of voting age, I forced myself not to be surprised by that despite my initial bewilderment once I thought about how involved that extreme minority of voters became.
I can only hope that Mormons in California behaved themselves civilly and with class, if for no other reason than to do as little as possible to justify allegations of bigotry and intolerance that are being cast. I hope that pro-Prop 8 folks did and continue to follow the official direction given by the church with respect to the appropriate mode of support for that proposition.
What I do hope, most of all, is that we Mormons welcome the inevitable protests to Proposition 8 and other similar amendments nationwide as long as they are kept cordial and civil towards religious practice. The Mormon Church said this on the subject:
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
But I hope that we Mormons welcome the opportunity for dialogue and understanding that healthy protest can foster. Being overly defensive or overly zealous typically does little other than reinforce viewpoints either in your favor or against you, and without good dialogue and perspective we will never reach an understanding of how best to handle this issue that has potential to be so terribly divisive. No matter how future elections shape the policies of the varying states or, as I feel is inevitable, the nation, there will be a large body of people who will feel robbed of something special and sacred, and we will be forced to reconcile those feelings to continue to exist as neighbors in a spirit of social compassion and of patriotism. Both parties are under obligation to work together in a way that allows us to agree to disagree in some measure of harmony. Otherwise, we undermine what we view as the righteousness of our own position.*My estimated number is based on the just under 800,000 Mormons in California. Figure only about half are actively-practicing, half of that half are under 18, and that's where I get to 200,000. It's a dirty method, but I don't know of nor could I find any information as to Mormon voter registry or turnout, though my suspicion is that it's not tremendously different than any other group of potential voters. Also, I know at least anecdotally of several Mormons who did not vote for Proposition 8 and I imagine that they are not terribly unique.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Daylight Savings Time is a Crock
Once again, Freakonomics is there to tell us how it really is. Thanks to Freakonomics blogger Stephen J. Dubner for finding this article providing good science in support of the notion that Daylight Savings Time is, in fact, a crock and a waste.
It's an interesting premise, but sadly a bit of a boring read unless you're really in to quantitative analysis where the bulk of the writing is just explaining the methodology behind the research; it's important for good science, but painful to read. In a nutshell, these Ph.D. types reminded us all that, contrary to popular belief, Daylight Savings Time isn't about agriculture at all, but it's supposedly about keeping energy costs down by playing with the energy demand.
They did a study of Indiana who until recently left it up to the individual counties to decide whether they would practice DST. What's more, the poor hoosiers have the time zone divide going right down the middle of their state. Anyway, because they recently passed a law that all counties had to practice DST, they have a pretty good natural laboratory to compare average energy consumption.
Our main finding is that—contrary to the policy’s intent—DST results is an overall increase
in residential electricity demand. Estimates of the overall increase in consumption are
approximately 1 percent and highly statistically significant. We also find that the effect is not
constant throughout the DST period: there is some evidence for an increase in electricity demand at the spring transition into DST, but the real increases come in the fall when DST appears to increase consumption between 2 and 4 percent.
On a personal level, I've never liked the time change because I find the abrupt transition to standard time in the fall a bit jarring. It always happens just as the weather's starting to get cooler and the general look of the season a bit more bleak. The sun sits lower in the sky anyway, there are significantly fewer leaves on the trees, it's cold and flu season, etc. My personal favorite is when I arrive at work before the sun's up and don't leave until the sun's down. As a child of summer and something of a sun-worshiper, it's just too much of a change. I'm pretty sure I suffer from seasonal depression anyway and this isn't helping.
But wait: I discovered yet another reason not to love the time change: the Daughter pays more attention to the sun than the clock. So, while "fall back" used to be a refreshing time to get an extra hour of sleep before Sunday's obligations began, this year--the Daughter's first--it became an opportunity to have an extra hour to get ready in the morning as she was up by a little after 6:00 instead of her previous a little after 7:00. Yeesh.
So for those of you who may be struggling to find something to get riled up about now that the elections have come and gone, let's get riled up about this: Down with DST! It has all the components of a great cause: it's easy to put on a bumper sticker, a t-shirt, or a sign to be held up at a rally. You can even apply vague rhetoric to it that sounds profound: "Keep Us Out of the Dark!" "EnLIGHTen America!" What more do you need?
It's an interesting premise, but sadly a bit of a boring read unless you're really in to quantitative analysis where the bulk of the writing is just explaining the methodology behind the research; it's important for good science, but painful to read. In a nutshell, these Ph.D. types reminded us all that, contrary to popular belief, Daylight Savings Time isn't about agriculture at all, but it's supposedly about keeping energy costs down by playing with the energy demand.
They did a study of Indiana who until recently left it up to the individual counties to decide whether they would practice DST. What's more, the poor hoosiers have the time zone divide going right down the middle of their state. Anyway, because they recently passed a law that all counties had to practice DST, they have a pretty good natural laboratory to compare average energy consumption.
Our main finding is that—contrary to the policy’s intent—DST results is an overall increase
in residential electricity demand. Estimates of the overall increase in consumption are
approximately 1 percent and highly statistically significant. We also find that the effect is not
constant throughout the DST period: there is some evidence for an increase in electricity demand at the spring transition into DST, but the real increases come in the fall when DST appears to increase consumption between 2 and 4 percent.
On a personal level, I've never liked the time change because I find the abrupt transition to standard time in the fall a bit jarring. It always happens just as the weather's starting to get cooler and the general look of the season a bit more bleak. The sun sits lower in the sky anyway, there are significantly fewer leaves on the trees, it's cold and flu season, etc. My personal favorite is when I arrive at work before the sun's up and don't leave until the sun's down. As a child of summer and something of a sun-worshiper, it's just too much of a change. I'm pretty sure I suffer from seasonal depression anyway and this isn't helping.
But wait: I discovered yet another reason not to love the time change: the Daughter pays more attention to the sun than the clock. So, while "fall back" used to be a refreshing time to get an extra hour of sleep before Sunday's obligations began, this year--the Daughter's first--it became an opportunity to have an extra hour to get ready in the morning as she was up by a little after 6:00 instead of her previous a little after 7:00. Yeesh.
So for those of you who may be struggling to find something to get riled up about now that the elections have come and gone, let's get riled up about this: Down with DST! It has all the components of a great cause: it's easy to put on a bumper sticker, a t-shirt, or a sign to be held up at a rally. You can even apply vague rhetoric to it that sounds profound: "Keep Us Out of the Dark!" "EnLIGHTen America!" What more do you need?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Day Late and a Dollar Short: Post-Election Thoughts
Everyone else has already said things that are far more profound than what I can add to the aftermath of a very interesting election, but in the interests of getting my own thoughts in order, I should probably weigh in.
But first, you have to love The Onion for giving us the right kind of insight. I thought this was funny:
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Here are some initial thoughts. Overwhelmingly, I'm glad it's over. I'm sick of having a president who no one respects. Though I can't deny that it's easy to find fault with how he's handled things, I also can't deny that he had the deck stacked against him since 2004. After he defeated Senator Kerry, he implored people on both ends of the spectrum to work with him to keep America moving. I'm fairly certain that he knew that he won by the skin of his teeth even in the midst of a declining approval rating. I'm also fairly certain that he would not have wanted to win if he knew that his victory would only ossify the resolve of the Democrats against him while at the same time set in motion a pattern of steady abandonment by his own party. Before we talk about what a debacle his second term has been, let's look honestly at how much support he's been given.
I'm prepared for the arguments of whether he deserved any support. I'll only say that when a president that we've elected hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment, spending all our time griping about why he's not the best president instead of figuring out how to get things done with him doesn't help and isn't his fault. Thank you, Nancy and Harry. I'll remind everyone that Republicans hated Bill Clinton. Hated him. Up until he perjured himself into lame-duck land and subsequently faced potential impeachment, he wouldn't have been able to get anything done and make himself the savior of the 90s that he's remembered as without bipartisan support. Once he backed off of the dumb ideas of his first two years, he was able to get stuff done.
That being said, as much as I am about 180 degrees off of President-elect Obama's politics, I'm pleased to live in an America that has no qualms about electing an African-American president. I sincerely hope that no nut out there tries anything stupid and that President Obama takes care for his security. It's the small fraction of nut jobs out there that make it scary for all of us.
I think it's appropriate that he is of mixed heritage. It's sort of symbolic of a society with mixed backgrounds, varied values, struggling to find an equilibrium that works for most of us. I like it. I'm interested as to how this will affect the general tone of race relations and discussions thereof. My understanding is that something like 61% of white America voted for Obama and that of the remaining 39%, 38% of them would have been happy to vote for an African-American were he merely a Republican. Obviously, that's a big stride for our country.
Here is my prediction: President Obama will preach patience as he struggles to get every one of his ideas for change. The tail end of his campaign saw a lot of attempts by his people to bring the expectations down a bit in attempt to bring his supporters back down to Earth. Given how emotional support for him has been, I'm not sure what that will mean for how he's viewed. I'm not sure that his grassroots support is ready to acknowledge that some of what he's proposed could take years. We'll just have to see if they're willing to bear with him. No doubt he'll be able to vilify Republicans along the way for hamstringing his efforts, and no doubt the media will be happy to oblige him in that effort.
I'm very curious as to how the transition in Iraq will happen. I suspect that even generals friendly to Obama will suggest that the withdrawl from Iraq proceed about on the course upon which it is currently set--gradual and dependant upon Iraq meeting certain milestones. Taking that into account, how accountable will a President Obama be held for his desire and promise to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately? It's interesting that this particular platform was quiet in the waning months of the campaign.
I'm interested how a President Obama will claim credit for the economy's eventual rebound. Apparently Wall Street has no large degree of confidence in what an Obama presidency will mean as we've seen the worst post-election slide since the 80s during the last two days. I believe the economy will rebound because I believe in the forces that are at play in our system. But I very much doubt that it will have anything to do with the bailout that's already happened (I know I feel bailed out. Don't you?) nor with any other efforts the government will make. Nonetheless, it will happen during Obama's tenure and so he'll gladly take credit for it. I'm very curious as to how that will all pan out.
I'm interested as to what shape the Republican party will take in the next little while. Republican big-wigs are talking about a need to drastically reshape the party's direction, image, and core. I heard some commentary (on ESPN of all places) that I'd tend to agree with: they don't need to reshape anything. They just need to come up with a better face than Senator McCain. I respect Senator McCain and I think he would have made an adequate though largely-unremarkable president, but he's certainly not transcendent. Democrats had similar woes when Senator Kerry lost, and I don't think that they've really reshaped who they are so much as they found a very compelling candidate at a time when the country has been starving for a compelling leader.
This is getting too long, so more will come later. I lost most of you about three paragraphs ago. :)
But first, you have to love The Onion for giving us the right kind of insight. I thought this was funny:
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Here are some initial thoughts. Overwhelmingly, I'm glad it's over. I'm sick of having a president who no one respects. Though I can't deny that it's easy to find fault with how he's handled things, I also can't deny that he had the deck stacked against him since 2004. After he defeated Senator Kerry, he implored people on both ends of the spectrum to work with him to keep America moving. I'm fairly certain that he knew that he won by the skin of his teeth even in the midst of a declining approval rating. I'm also fairly certain that he would not have wanted to win if he knew that his victory would only ossify the resolve of the Democrats against him while at the same time set in motion a pattern of steady abandonment by his own party. Before we talk about what a debacle his second term has been, let's look honestly at how much support he's been given.
I'm prepared for the arguments of whether he deserved any support. I'll only say that when a president that we've elected hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment, spending all our time griping about why he's not the best president instead of figuring out how to get things done with him doesn't help and isn't his fault. Thank you, Nancy and Harry. I'll remind everyone that Republicans hated Bill Clinton. Hated him. Up until he perjured himself into lame-duck land and subsequently faced potential impeachment, he wouldn't have been able to get anything done and make himself the savior of the 90s that he's remembered as without bipartisan support. Once he backed off of the dumb ideas of his first two years, he was able to get stuff done.
That being said, as much as I am about 180 degrees off of President-elect Obama's politics, I'm pleased to live in an America that has no qualms about electing an African-American president. I sincerely hope that no nut out there tries anything stupid and that President Obama takes care for his security. It's the small fraction of nut jobs out there that make it scary for all of us.
I think it's appropriate that he is of mixed heritage. It's sort of symbolic of a society with mixed backgrounds, varied values, struggling to find an equilibrium that works for most of us. I like it. I'm interested as to how this will affect the general tone of race relations and discussions thereof. My understanding is that something like 61% of white America voted for Obama and that of the remaining 39%, 38% of them would have been happy to vote for an African-American were he merely a Republican. Obviously, that's a big stride for our country.
Here is my prediction: President Obama will preach patience as he struggles to get every one of his ideas for change. The tail end of his campaign saw a lot of attempts by his people to bring the expectations down a bit in attempt to bring his supporters back down to Earth. Given how emotional support for him has been, I'm not sure what that will mean for how he's viewed. I'm not sure that his grassroots support is ready to acknowledge that some of what he's proposed could take years. We'll just have to see if they're willing to bear with him. No doubt he'll be able to vilify Republicans along the way for hamstringing his efforts, and no doubt the media will be happy to oblige him in that effort.
I'm very curious as to how the transition in Iraq will happen. I suspect that even generals friendly to Obama will suggest that the withdrawl from Iraq proceed about on the course upon which it is currently set--gradual and dependant upon Iraq meeting certain milestones. Taking that into account, how accountable will a President Obama be held for his desire and promise to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately? It's interesting that this particular platform was quiet in the waning months of the campaign.
I'm interested how a President Obama will claim credit for the economy's eventual rebound. Apparently Wall Street has no large degree of confidence in what an Obama presidency will mean as we've seen the worst post-election slide since the 80s during the last two days. I believe the economy will rebound because I believe in the forces that are at play in our system. But I very much doubt that it will have anything to do with the bailout that's already happened (I know I feel bailed out. Don't you?) nor with any other efforts the government will make. Nonetheless, it will happen during Obama's tenure and so he'll gladly take credit for it. I'm very curious as to how that will all pan out.
I'm interested as to what shape the Republican party will take in the next little while. Republican big-wigs are talking about a need to drastically reshape the party's direction, image, and core. I heard some commentary (on ESPN of all places) that I'd tend to agree with: they don't need to reshape anything. They just need to come up with a better face than Senator McCain. I respect Senator McCain and I think he would have made an adequate though largely-unremarkable president, but he's certainly not transcendent. Democrats had similar woes when Senator Kerry lost, and I don't think that they've really reshaped who they are so much as they found a very compelling candidate at a time when the country has been starving for a compelling leader.
This is getting too long, so more will come later. I lost most of you about three paragraphs ago. :)
Monday, November 3, 2008
Print Media Bias, or at Least Endorsement
I recently posted some opinions and links on media bias in elections. My buddy Mike made a good point in a comment that it's a little vague to make a claim about "media" without defining it a bit better.
Point taken. So, here's a good post on the New York Times blog, "Freakonomics," that at least gives some good numbers on how the print media, if not biased, clearly has a tradition of endorsement.
MAIN STATS
Percentage of Daily Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 67.8%
Percentage of College Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 98.4%
Just a thought. Take what you read with a grain of salt (blogs like mine included). Best of luck getting in and out of a polling place in under 90 minutes tomorrow.
Point taken. So, here's a good post on the New York Times blog, "Freakonomics," that at least gives some good numbers on how the print media, if not biased, clearly has a tradition of endorsement.
MAIN STATS
Percentage of Daily Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 67.8%
Percentage of College Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 98.4%
Just a thought. Take what you read with a grain of salt (blogs like mine included). Best of luck getting in and out of a polling place in under 90 minutes tomorrow.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Flu Shots are a Crock
The Wife and I have had quite a bit of difficulty with the field of pediatric medicine these days. We both have the image of our childhood pediatricians in our head as we are somewhat disappointed in McClinics and how they completely destroy any feeling of relationship and partnership with our baby's physician.
In general, the people we've interacted with at the local pediatrics clinic have been nice in an impersonal kind of way. But the Wife got something of a dirty look from a nurse the other day when she dared question her as to just how useful a flu shot can be when there are thousands and thousands of permutations of flu bug that can infect you.
Now in general we're pro-immunizations for babies. It sucks to watch a small baby get poked with 4+ shots in one sitting, though the nurses we've had administer the Baby her shots have been tremendously talented at making it as quick of an experience as possible with our help. Laying that aside, I'm not sure I'm sold on scientists who've attempted to link autism and learning disabilities to a higher concentration of immunizations at a young age. I'm not convinced that there's a causal link there and I haven't seen any study show more than correlation.
But I have to say, for now I'm convinced that flu shots are a crock. We were waffling about it last month when we gave the Baby a set of boosters and they asked us if we wanted to give her a flu shot, and our doctor pointed out how miserable it would be to have a sick baby. Well, not only did the Baby run a temperature for two or three days as a side effect of the vaccination, but she got sick last weekend. Just as she was getting better from being sick, she was due for her booster and then promptly burned a fever after getting it. I'm so glad we got that one extra vaccination.
Does anyone out there know of any legit studies on this? Any strong feelings one way or another? I'd be interested to hear them.
In general, the people we've interacted with at the local pediatrics clinic have been nice in an impersonal kind of way. But the Wife got something of a dirty look from a nurse the other day when she dared question her as to just how useful a flu shot can be when there are thousands and thousands of permutations of flu bug that can infect you.
Now in general we're pro-immunizations for babies. It sucks to watch a small baby get poked with 4+ shots in one sitting, though the nurses we've had administer the Baby her shots have been tremendously talented at making it as quick of an experience as possible with our help. Laying that aside, I'm not sure I'm sold on scientists who've attempted to link autism and learning disabilities to a higher concentration of immunizations at a young age. I'm not convinced that there's a causal link there and I haven't seen any study show more than correlation.
But I have to say, for now I'm convinced that flu shots are a crock. We were waffling about it last month when we gave the Baby a set of boosters and they asked us if we wanted to give her a flu shot, and our doctor pointed out how miserable it would be to have a sick baby. Well, not only did the Baby run a temperature for two or three days as a side effect of the vaccination, but she got sick last weekend. Just as she was getting better from being sick, she was due for her booster and then promptly burned a fever after getting it. I'm so glad we got that one extra vaccination.
Does anyone out there know of any legit studies on this? Any strong feelings one way or another? I'd be interested to hear them.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
80s Moment: Footloose
I've had quite a few politically-oriented rants of late, so here's a blast from the past. I know that we've all had a moment where we were feeling so oppressed, so frustrated by being brought down by the man, that we just had to pull into a warehouse, put a tape into our VW bug with the volume turned way up, and dance until it's all better. For those of you who have yet to experience the joy and the wonder, or if it's just been a while, I give you Kevin Bacon in "Footloose." Enjoy:
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Enlightened Thoughts from a Mormon Democrat: Preach On, Brother Card!
For those of you who are confused at my title, I understand. A Mormon Democrat is seen largely as a contradiction in terms, but there are more than you’d think. I happen not to be one of them, but some of my friends are. There’s even one in the Senate—the always lovable Brother Harry Reid of Nevada.
Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, writer, and Mormon recently wrote a fantastic bit of commentary about the current state of journalism in America and its overwhelmingly “forgiving” attitude of liberal politicians. Here’s the link. I tried for the life of me to excerpt it and I couldn't in good conscience leave anything out, so if you'd like to read it here, here goes:
Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, writer, and Mormon recently wrote a fantastic bit of commentary about the current state of journalism in America and its overwhelmingly “forgiving” attitude of liberal politicians. Here’s the link. I tried for the life of me to excerpt it and I couldn't in good conscience leave anything out, so if you'd like to read it here, here goes:
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
