I wish I was a little bit taller.
I wish I was a baller.
I wish I had a girl who looked good (I would call her).
I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat and a sixty-four Impala.
Unless there are some really great arguments I'm not aware of, this article (yes, from the National Review) pretty deftly lays waste to most of the arguments against drilling in ANWR.
One issue he doesn't address, though, is the timing -- and it's there that I think we (and the Obama campaign) should differ from the conservatives. In terms of our overall oil appetite, ANWR has a pretty tiny amount of the stuff; a 6-month supply, essentially. With oil prices consistently rising and energy security an issue, shouldn't we save the oil in ANWR for when it'll actually matter, or at least, when we'll get a better price for it in the future if the growth in demand for oil continues to outstrip supply growth? The idea that drilling in ANWR *today* is a good idea strikes me as a cheap Republican political ploy, even if drilling there *tomorrow* makes perfectly good sense.
Rob seems to treat this as a given in his latest post. I'm just not seeing it. Anyone care to make the case?
I'm not seeing any historical evidence that we ever reached some kind of 'happy balance', as a society, that we then went past. Previous generations saw kids dancing at church or the occasional showing of ankle under a woman's dress as evidence that they were all becoming sexual hellions. My dad is constantly griping to me that our generation is the most prudish he's ever seen, and that everyone dresses so conservative now, especially in high school, compared to the early 1970s.
Since I'm not getting it, could someone lay out the case for me that we've gone over the edge?
Current plans from the majority of Democratic candidates invoke these two popular plans as a means toward balancing the budget:
1. Remove the payroll cap on Social Security.
2. Roll back the Bush tax cuts for the bracket.
Either one of these changes might be a prudent way to produce greater revenue without significantly impacting economic incentives.
But take the two of them combined, and you're looking at roughly a 20% increase in highest marginal tax rate.
One might still make a case that it's justified, but you'd have a hard time arguing that that won't impact incentives for entrepeneurship and investment here.
These sorts of issues won't affect the super-rich either way -- the top 0.1% -- because their taxes are essentially untouchable (I remember reading an article on Theresa Heinz Kerry's finances somewhere investigating her taxes and estimating that her effective rate was less than 10%). It'll affect those who are merely "rich", those with incomes ranging from about $500,000 up to $2 million or so.
One might be tempted to say, "Well, they're rich anyway! Who cares what happens to them?", but as this excellent article points out, they have options for where to put their money - we can't simply enslave everyone making above a certain figure and prevent them from leaving the country!
So my question to you, then, is: What should our overall tax burden be? At what point would you stipulate that the rich are paying their share, the tax system is as you'd like it, and no changes are necessary? And how would you defend that proposed distribution from the criticisms of either side - that it's not progressive enough, or that it discourages entrepreneurship?
For example? Sunni vs Shia? Northern Ireland? Turkey's response to Kurdish separatism? The future of Belgium? China's control of Tibet?
There are some international disputes where the progressive position seems easy to demarcate -- find the oppressed or marginalized, and take their side.
I have the suspicion that this search for pat answers causes many progressives to place a disproportionate emphasis on conflicts that aren't that important in real-world terms, simply because they're easy to sound-bite. For example, the Israeli-Palestine conflict; in all seriousness, I believe its importance has been overstated. The issue of Turkey and the Kurds is far, far more important in my eyes. And yet, figuring out what the 'progressive position' should be is far murkier. So we hear about it less.
What are your thoughts on any of the issues listed above?
...ever seemed like a cool kids' club to which you never received the proper password and secret handshake, that's because it is.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. If anything, it's more entertaining this way. And besides, that feeling of 'clubbiness' could be seen as one of the fringe benefits of the job, something that helps ease their qualms (many of them have very marketable degrees) about what they're passing up on in terms of salary and the like by becoming a professional writer.
A post over at the right-wing blog RedState claims that the actual number of unwillingly uninsured Americans is much lower. The post doesn't include actual links to sources, so I have the suspicion this guy is fudging the numbers, just like he accuses the Democrats of doing.
So I figured I'd kick it to you guys -- moving beyond the "47 million" soundbite number...
...what's the real number? How do we figure out what that number is?
And what about the problem of people being underinsured? Last I checked, most people who go bankrupt for health-cost reasons *had* health insurance.
How can we better argue the progressive case for health care reform -- or even more fundamentally, the case that there's a problem to be resolved here -- and what statistics should we be using?
Another statistic I often hear mentioned is our rate of infant mortality -- but then, I've heard the counter-argument that our infant mortality rates are only high because we're advanced enough that we attempt to save long-shot chances that wouldn't even make it to term under other health-care systems.
And, oddly enough given the public debate, rates of satisfaction with our health care system among the general population are actually quite high compared to other nations.
In short - any health-care policy wonks here, who want to sort out these competing and contradictory claims for me?
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, claims to represent Muslim America. Thanks to the (ridiculously biased and far-right, but who's counting?) Washington Times, however, we now have a reasonably accurate membership count of dues-paying CAIR members: 1,700.
I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that all of us here support Muslim Americans against the hatred and bigotry that *is* out there in America today, and has already claimed innocent lives.
That said, does that mean we should be supporting CAIR?
CAIR has had substantive ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas, their funding sources are shady and/or ill-documented, and they often seem to do more harm in advancing Muslim American interests than good due to their ties to extremism.
Now, according to their tax returns, they don't even represent more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the Muslim American community.
To give a sense of comparison - the forum goons at SomethingAwful.com outnumber CAIR, for cryin' out loud.
Is it time to jettison CAIR as the 'go to' group on Muslim American issues and look for a more reasonable partner organization?
You guys are great. Really, you are. You take good care of my city while I'm away (My just desserts for spending 8 months each year in DC is a summer in SoCal). But please, for the curious out there, pics with fewer MySpace angles, please? Some of you are almost too scene to function. :)
I had heard allegations of his racism tossed around when he was going after Don Imus, but my mind moved on to other things and so I didn't think about it much.
Then, I read a bit more about it - this article is a fair representation, though it's the National Review so you get some conservative crankery along with the useful commentary - and I find myself deeply disturbed that A) legitimate Democrats are willing to be seen with this guy B) Anyone would place their trust in Al Sharpton to represent them.
It was a sad day when the Republicans slipped an online gambling ban into a bill on port security (of all things!) last year. The legislation was never designed to serve any public interest - only to protect gambling monopolies of a few rich, Republican-oriented businesses (such as horse-race betting, which was curiously exempted from the ban).
Well, now poker players are making their voices heard at both the grassroots and lobbying level, and thanks to liberal heavyweights like Barney Frank and Al D'Amato we'll hopefully see this ban reversed before too long. The gears are already in motion.
Some days, I'm really, really thankful that the UN is just an ineffectual paper tiger. Imagine if this actually had some weight behind it:
GENEVA (AP) - Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion—a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."
The resolution was adopted by a 24-14 vote with nine abstentions. Canada, Japan and South Korea joined European countries in opposition, primarily citing its excessive focus on Islam and incompatibility with fundamental rights such as the freedoms of speech and thought.
Now a Council of Liberal Democracies, on the other hand, I'd be bullish on...
Let it be known, I have a total schoolgirl crush on Mickey Kaus. But setting my biases aside, I was wondering what you guys think on this post from his blog:
<blockquote>
Kabuki Watch? Here's a question: If it's
a) in the Congressional Democrats' interest to try but ultimately fail to use their funding power force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it shows the antiwar left Pelosi is trying without giving Dems responsibility for a messy Iraq outcome),
and it's
b) in the Bush administration's interest to have Congressional Dems' try but ultimately fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it lets Bush continue the "surge" while giving him the threat of a Dem-forced pullout with which to pressure the Maliki government),
then
c) isn't it true that what probably will happen is that the Congressional Dems try but ultimately fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?
Now, as many of you know, I'm not usually a big fan of "take to the streets" activism - I think it's too often more about counterproductive, egocentric grandstanding than a pragmatic approach to changing policy.
Last night was an exception.
For my 21st birthday, the beloved Georgetown Hoyas gave me a wonderful gift - WE'RE GOING TO THE FINAL FOUR!!!
This is DC, so we didn't just celebrate privately and leave it at that.
No, we marched to the White House several thousand strong, demanding Bush come out and congratulate the Hoyas on our victory. While that didn't happen, they did at least turn on the floodlights on the lawn to acknowledge us.
For those who've never heard, Kool Keith is beloved by many fans of hip-hop for his work with the Ultramagnetic MCs over a decade ago, but he continues onward as Dr. Octagon as a collaboration with Dan The Autmator, making quirky cool hip-hop over Dan's tripped out beats.
He's recently released possibly the first hip-hop track about global warming, and I urge you all to check it out. (It's YouTube so the sound quality is crap, but grab it off the web somewhere if you want the high quality version.)
Much has recently been made in the blogosphere about Barack Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too -- "squaring quite a few circles", as the Nation put it.
According to the Nation, a fine example of this behavior is Obama's citation of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln as exemplars of leaders who forged a new national unity.
On the contrary, as many have pointed out, despite their current street cred both Lincoln and King were viewed as highly polarizing during their times.
Allow me to take a slightly different perspective. The importance of Obama citing Lincoln, King, et al. in his announcement speech is not so much the truth of how polarizing they were at the time, but how they're understood today -- by "understood", of course, we're euphemistically talking about a rewriting of history to make it much cleaner and Made-for-TV than it actually was. As the saying goes, 'close enough for government work'.
The point is not that Lincoln and King united the country at their respective times -- the point is that history bore them out as such titanic, morally powerful figures that the only comforting recourse for our nation is to Disney-ify our past and imagine that we must have all been united behind them at the time.
We do this with every period of history - Witness Mel Gibson in The Patriot as the rich plantation owner who just so happens to only employ free blacks.
It's a comfort to think that had we been born then (with our 21st century values and socialization intact, it is unconsciously assumed), surely we would have been on the side of all that's good and right. After all, we're Good People.
My standard for Obama, should he become president, is thus more lenient than the Nation article that Josh approvingly quotes.
He doesn't have to be a uniter today - his "on the one hand, on the other hand" act will be nigh-impossible to successfully keep up should he actually win the presidency and be tasked with governing. But if history is any guide, as long as his leadership is of a high enough caliber, as a nation we'll be moved to collectively re-write him into a uniter after the fact.
(Edit: Down in the comments section, JR raised some questions about why I write as I do on CampusProgress. Our conversation might be of interest to some people - Hence, the updated title of this post. Scroll down if you're interested. Warning: It's 5AM, I'm zonked out, and yes, there are some spelling errors.)
Not even intentional blasphemy, either! The protestors were simply stomping on renditions of the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, which included the word 'Allah' in Arabic script unbeknownst to them.
But let's say it were intentional. It would be in poor taste, I agree, but how on earth can any civilized society justify the prohibition of blasphemy? No religion or superstition (I will leave it up to readers to distinguish between the two as they like) is deserving of such special protections.
The school administrators are clearly doing their best to make an uncomfortable and hostile campus environment for people such as atheists and anti-theists, a group for whom historically the restriction of the freedom to criticize religion has been followed by violence and oppression.
(Atheists are one of the most discriminated-against minorities in our society; 40% of Americans say they would not vote for an Atheist for president even if they agreed with him on every policy, as compared with 10% for African Americans, Women, or Jews.)
The right to commit blasphemy is a cause that every liberal and progressive should rally behind.
Edit: One of the students in the campus newspaper is quoted as follows:
“The fact that God was on the flag, it was offensive to me and other Muslims,” Najjar said. “You don’t get to step on people’s religions.”
Setting aside the question of whether the far, far greater offense was that a political party put God on their flag, since when do you not get to step on people's religions at a public university?
Heather MacDonald argues that it wasn't, and I find her pretty convincing. My first inclination when I heard the bare facts of the case was that it sounded like an instance of police brutality, but now that we have a fuller picture of the incident I'm not so sure of that.
While his comments about Obama do border on racism ("clean and articulate"?), this kind of unbelievably blunt talk from a presidential candidate will make the debates that much better.
Yes, I agree, income inequality has indeed reached some gross proportions.
But at the same time, there are far better policy options than the tried-and-true axioms that you hear repeated almost endlessly on these blogs - fair trade, universal health care, college affordability.
(Originally, I pointed to Kwhite's latest post as an example of "pushing this orthodoxy", a reading which Kwhite disputes. Fair enough.)
I'll attempt to address the main points of each, and at the same time offer up some serious counter-solutions of my own.
So-called "fair trade", as a full system rather than an ad-hoc basis whereby a few farmers benefit when college kids want to feel good about themselves, too often ends up being simply far less trade, exacerbating and extending third world poverty. Low wages are not, in and of themselves, a form of exploitation.
As for universal health care - noble goal, but that depends completely how it's done. Specifically, if people have no incentive not to consume health care based on whether they really need it or not (i.e. preventative or not), it becomes financially unsustainable very quickly. Systems like France's benefit from elective procedures simply not being as popular over there -- and at the same time, I'd hardly call their system "sustainable".
A better approach is to aim for universal health insurance coverage - using market-based mechanisms to improve access while maintaining the system's efficiency.
Lastly, we have got to rein in consumer financing somehow. Middle-class America is getting itself into debt beyond all reason, with the savings rate actually going negative. People are just buying an unbelievable amount of crap they don't need these days -- everything from IPods to leased SUVs -- and not saving like they should.
That's one of the biggest stories I haven't seen the progressive community touch very much - the middle-class' shift away from personal fiscal responsibility over the past two decades or so.
The stock market rising should be benefiting the middle class. The reasons it isn't as much are largely due to people making stupid choices.
The return of the average investor is only comparable to a T-bill, significantly less than you'd get from just taking some safe mutual funds.
Why is that?
Because people suck at picking stocks. 98% of the people who pick their own stocks shouldn't be.
It's really no different than playing poker, but we stigmatize gambling in this country and then turn around and pretend that everyone picking stocks for themselves is being "responsible".
Most people who claim to know what they're doing in the stock market are little more than gamblers, and their returns, honestly accounted for, reflect that. We need to be getting more people into mutual funds.
As for college affordability: If we're really serious about increasing class mobility, why are we not talking about expanding the EITC and scholarships targeted at especially useful majors for low-income kids?
I'm all for making college more affordable, assuming it's truly an investment in kids from underprivileged backgrounds and their future. Let the kids from the ranks of the idle rich take the gender studies major or become the world's leading expert on Chaucer, I want Mr. First-In-My-Family-To-Go-To-College to outdo and outclass them, focusing on hard math and science, high-demand language skills, etcetera.
The proof is in the pudding. The group at the top of America's socio-economic ladder isn't whites -- it's Asian Americans, who have a higher average household income and lower out-of-wedlock birthrates. Disproportionately, Asian American parents tend to steer their kids towards "non-fluff" majors. This occasionally results in some very unhappy kids, but it works. Jewish Americans have (at least historically) done the same. For many of us, the whole "doctor or a lawyer" thing was just a running gag at synagogue, but enough parents genuinely think that way that it shifts the averages.
We should also seriously be incentivize trade schools. The simple fact is, a lot of people go to college not because it's best for them, but because we lionize it in our culture and pretend it's the gateway ticket to All Good Things.
The reality is somewhat different - in a global economy, a skilled tradesman may end up doing better financially, not to mention the benefits of being good with your hands and the stability of never having to worry about being outsourced.
To give you an example: I know a guy who's really, really bright. He aspired to a middle class standard of living, but rather than simply going with the herd, he cracked out a calculator and started to punch numbers.
At the end of the day, he took the path which makes the most financial sense -- he graduated early with his GED and started working at the post office at age 17.
The post office is not a hard job, you meet interesting people from time to time, and the benefits (as from most government jobs) are quite competitive. It's almost impossible to be fired and there's a fairly set schedule for when you get promoted.
Whenever anyone from some mid-rank college with a liberal arts degree questions his lack of a degree, he simply whips out the calculator and shows them how he'll almost certainly end up better off financially than they will.
It happens enough that he knows the numbers for their average salaries after graduation (and their average debt load) by heart -- and the look on their face when they realize they could have done better by working at the post office than going to college is priceless.
He has no debt, guaranteed job stability and nearly-guaranteed promotions, great benefits, and he's literally five years ahead in his career and earnings. More like six years ahead if you count the fact that a plurality of American college students take five years to graduate.
Given the lifestyle of a postman, he even has more time to pursue his intellectual passions than the average college student.
It's come to my attention, reading ashwini's blog, that some people actually take that thing seriously. I've met few policymakers who think it's worth the paper it's printed on, and I'm inclined to agree - it's an unworkable, unrealistic, unenforceable document that's ultimately meaningless.
Does anyone here who supports it care to offer arguments in favor if its usefulness and its relevance?
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
