Everyday People

David Brooks writes today, in his typical "state-the-obvious" style, that while there are large problems facing America, the political parties don't seem able to come together to solve them. Yep. Really rubbing the old brain cells there together at the New York Times. Still they keep Krugman on the page, so they aren't all bad.

He also seems to think that the political parties might change in the future.

At the same time, Americans will grow even more disenchanted with the political status quo. Not only will there be a general distaste for the hyperpartisan style, but people will also begin to see how partisan brawling threatens the nation's prosperity. They'll read more books like "The Coming Generational Storm" by Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns and "Running on Empty" by Peter Peterson. They will be more aware of the looming disaster. As the situation gets worse, the prospects of change get better, because Americans will not slide noiselessly into oblivion.

The party alignments have been pretty stable over the past few generations, but there's no reason to think they will be in the future. The Whig Party died. The Progressive movement arose because the parties seemed stagnant a century ago. I wouldn't be surprised if some anti-politician emerged - of the Schwarzenegger or Perot varieties - to crash through the current alignments and bust heads.

It's, of course, possible. But there are lots of reasons to think that this is unlikely. For one thing, you have huge media networks who are pretty well invested in the parties as they are now. For another we haven't had a serious third party challenger in years. Probably the most likely potential outcome would be for the parties to change themselves to better fit what they think people want.

The Difference Between This and That

The other day Salon posted an interesting column by Ayelet Waldman about her experience blogging her life. Apparently one night she had a suicidal impulse (what is called "suicidal ideation") and discussed it on her blog. Her husband was on a trip and her friends rallied around her, getting her to talk to her doctor, who changed her medication and solved the problem. Sort of. Anyway she writes about what blogging is doing to her family or what it could do to her family.

My blogging has been cathartic; my self-exposure served some kind of purpose, but there is no doubt that it exacted a cost. One of the problems was that there are a whole lot of people huddled under my particular dirty raincoat. There is my husband, a gracious and good-tempered man, and one who has himself wrestled with the self-exposure business. More important, because they are more defenseless, there are my children, two boys and two girls, ranging in age from not quite 2 to 10 years old. I have always used my children as material in my fiction, and even occasionally in essays, but never with the immediacy demanded of a blog. My daughter shouted at her father, "You like being mean to us; you're nothing but a hatred machine." Half an hour later, it was in print online.

I read this article and it stuck in my mind. I considered blogging on it (with the obvious joke about how I would never subject my life to you people (other than random observations on Jesus Scented Candles and New Soft Drink Products)), but ended up not doing it.

I was somewhat uncomfortable with it, truthfully. And today's letters in response to that article seem to share a similar lack of comfort. One that particularly hit me was from Name Withheld by Request (poor guy. A name like that has to make it hard to order Pizza).

In the era of gossip and Google, this public airing is exactly what Waldman is condemning her kids to, as well as eventual scrutiny by dates, potential mates, summer employers and college admissions officers to the "things they said" or how, like her son in the article, they try to cope with her illness. My heart went out to that little boy as I read. He does not deserve to have that moment of terror served up for anyone's curiosity, amusement, titillation or even, God help us, "education."

Please do not give this woman a forum to write about her children's lives. They have done nothing to deserve what they are dealing with now. This airing of their lives in one of the most popular magazines online is a punishment they just don't deserve. Their mother is self-described as mentally ill. Perhaps you should think about what you are doing here.

I have to say I agree with Mr. by Request. It is, in some ways, pretty cruel what this woman is choosing to do, and what Salon is choosing to let her do.

Round the Horn With Extra Extras

I'm not sure what those extras will be but they will be extra.

Bark Bark Wolf Wolf has some info on two figures on the right who might get dragged into the Tom Delay debacle. Grover Norquist in particular is a baddy, so I wouldn't mind that at all.

iddybud has some thoughts on the potential for a second run by John Edwards and the news that Edwards will soon be Podcasting.

LEFT is RIGHT has some comments by Senate Minority Leaders Harry Reid on the Blogging Phenomonen.

Republican Sinners has a bit on Tom Delay and the sin of Greed.

Hey Respectful of Otters is back. We should all take the day off to celebrate. And by all I mostly mean me. But anyway let's se what she's got. Hey she's got an article on the Libstadt Case (which involved denying the holocaust and bad sportsmanship) and "media balance." Seriously, though, it's good to have her back.

Scrutiny Hooligans has some news on Oil Production in the Middle East which is not that hopeful, I'm afraid.

Sooner Thought has an article by a former Congressional Candidate on the lack of a Democratic Message.

Speedkill has an explanation of how one is nominated for the Nobel Prize. Apparently it really is all political.

THE FULCRUM has some thoughts on the opening of ANWR to oil exploitation.

The Invisible Library has some thoughts about boys reading and about access to information that are well worth considering.

And that's it for another week. Oh, those of you who enjoyed the Gothem City 13, the dude has a new blog called In Search of Telford. Go give it a gander.

Soda Time

For those of you are in the know than you already know that a new soda has appeared on the horizon, Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper. Yep. They looked at Wild Cherry Pepsi. They looked at Cherry Coke. They looked at Vanilla Pepsi and Vanilla Coke. And they did the logical thing.

Only one flaw with the product. Still tastes like Dr. Pepper.

Propoganda

Propoganda is a big word right now. I mean after the Armstrong Williams et al. situation has come the news that the Bush administration has been creating news segments and distributing them to news groups. Andres Martinez comments on this news in a recent column.

As the New York Times reported Sunday, at least 20 federal agencies have been peddling TV news segments to local stations across the country. Viewers have been treated to news reports of happy farmers, happy air travelers and happy beachgoers without ever knowing that these happy but fake news reports were produced by the Agriculture Department, the Transportation Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

One question I have about this is how many of these are designed to make us feel good about Bush's policies and how many are legitimate PSAs? I mean the Government does have to talk to us on occasion. That said, this certainly doesn't look good. And, as Martinez points out, it doesn't make us look good.

This clumsy branding of George W. Bush's vision of America to Americans will not only backfire at home, it invariably subverts efforts to brand America overseas. Public candor and transparency are supposed to be one of the American brand's distinguishing assets.

Anyway something to think about (which is my favorite way to end an article when I can't think of a zinger).

Media Bias

Ari Fleischer has just come out with a book on his time as the Bush White House Press Secretary. Brent Bozell, who's dedicated his life towards fighting Media Bias, reviews the book for Townhall. Unsurprisingly, he sees it as further proof of Media Bias. And he has a word for those of us who deny Media Bias. "Delusional oddballs."

Apparently the press, especially Helen Thomas, asked a lot of really tough questions of Mr. Fleischer. And that proves it! Or would, if Helen Thomas were somehow representative of the White House Press Corps.

Bozell also takes on a recent review of the book by Salon Magazine, choosing to single out one paragraph as proof that there is so a liberal bias.

Short version. Fleischer claims that the media never uses the term "Social Liberal." Eric Boehlert says that there are 725 stories that use the term between 2001 and 2003 (the term that Fleischer was in the press room). Bozell calls this "lazy, sloppy criticism," as he believes you should have whittled that down to exclude letters to the editor, or small town newspapers, or editorials. He then reviews 2004 to show that the mainstream media outlets did not use the term (except NPR and CBS which used the term once each). Not having Nexis Lexis I can't verify this myself.

On the other hand Bozell doesn't challenge others of Boehlerts critiques, such as this one.

For instance, riding a favorite conservative hobby horse, he complains that while reporters routinely label Republicans as "conservatives," they shy away from tagging Democrats as "liberals." "Why have they largely stopped using the word 'liberal'?" Fleischer wonders.

Stop using? Just within the last year, according to Nexis, the New York Times has published 325 articles that contained three or more references to "liberal," followed by the Washington Post (with 283 articles), Los Angeles Times (266), Associated Press (227), Chicago Tribune (165), and USA Today (71).

But of course the real point is that the press is liberally biased because it's liberally biased. Spending a lot of time explaining that is kind of beside the point. The claim that the Media is liberally biased isn't designed to get you to study the news more carefully. It's designed to get you to reject stories that conflict with a conservative point of view. It encourages not more thought, but less.

Press Conference - The Importance of Air

President Bush gave a press conference today and closed with this interesting line.

Listen, whoever thought about modernizing this room deserves a lot of credit. (Laughter.) Like, there's very little oxygen in here anymore. (Laughter.) And so, for the sake of a health press corps and a healthy President, I'm going to end the press conference. But I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come by and visit.

"Damn. I knew there was something I forgot to do. I forgot to poke airholes in the White House Press Room. This is just like that time I built a terrarium for my pet frog. Poor Rodney."

Probably read the Press Conference tomorrow and comment on more substantive bits. Or not. Who knows?

Scent

I love scented candles. My favorites are Vanilla and Apple Cinnamon. But now there is a new candle on the block. And it smells like Jesus.

Boy, with a story like this, there are literally hundreds of ways to offend people. So I guess I'll shut up now.

The Old Bait and Switch

Matt Towery has an interesting article today that suggests that President Bush's real goal with his Social Security plan is to keep attention away from other things that he and Congressional Republicans want.

Yes, the president is stubbornly bulldozing ahead on his quest to modify the Social Security system. And yes, the proposal is so convoluted and full of holes that it has engendered criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. Take this open GOP dissent as a tip-off that the whole passion play over Social Security reform may have been authored with a hidden method to the apparent madness.

Even as the White House chases its tail and takes a lashing from top Republican brass over the reform policy, it is at the same time starting to cash in chits on other issues from Republicans -- and from many red-state Democrats who are scared about their re-election chances next year.

A prime example was the recent passage of new sweeping bankruptcy laws.

This is an interesting theory.

On the other hand, he suggests that Democratic Senators who supported the Bankruptcy bill are afraid of red-state voters, and so supported the Program out of fear. I kind of hope that none of them are stupid enough to do that, because it plainly wouldn't work. For one thing, the Republican Party and the President are going to try to unseat them regardless of how they vote on this measure. For another, the Bankruptcy bill is not something that is going to win them votes. Campaign contributions, yeah, probably. But not votes.

What's the Congressperson going to say? "My fellow citizens, I helped pass a law that ensured that if you have a medical emergency, you'll lose your house!"" Not sure how that will play out on the campaign trail. Truthfully I'm pretty sure there is a good reason the vote was held as far away from the next time these guys have to stand for election as possible.

Towery does also say some nice things about Dan Rather, at the end of his article. So that's nice.

[Edited because I forgot the link like a Dunderhead]

Go Do This Now!

Look at this video and consider the future. Also, I'm not going to summarize it, and the rest of this article won't make much sense if you don't watch it (but if you are pressed for time, there is a transcript there too, towards the bottom).

First of all, Googlezon sounds a bit like a German cheese. And not a very tasty one.

Secondly, I'm not sure if the Supreme Court would really rule that way. It would depend on how invisible the technology were. If what it created were something like a blog post, with a link to the original story and clearly marked quotations, than the New York Times would have little grounds to sue. Or to put it another way, there'd be no reason not to sue Atrios or, well, me, as well as Googlezon.

I also think they spend too little time on the advertising side, and the potential synergy between advertisers and news providers.

Still worth thinking about. So go see the movie and think about it. And then post your thoughts in the comments section. And then go have an ice cream sundae (or whatever treat is appropriate).

Judicial Review

Ben Shapiro, "Boy Prognisticator," writes today on whether or not the principle of Judicial Review has outlived its usefulness. His argument is that the courts have expanded this principle to force judgments beyond what the constitution intended (this isn't exactly an original argument).

The Supreme Court has consistently, for the past 50-odd years at the very least, substituted its judgment for the judgment of the people, without regard to the Constitution.

. . . The time has come to do away with judicial review as a whole. The judicial branch has been politicized to such an extent that judges who fulfill Hamilton's qualifications -- judges who compare legislation to the actual Constitution -- are dubbed conservative extremists, while judges who legislate from the bench are termed moderates. The system has become so thoroughly corrupt that the only choice left to us is a Constitutional amendment ending judicial review of legislative acts.

"How can legislatures be trusted not to violate the Constitution, if there is no check upon them?" many will ask. The check will be the people themselves. If our elected lawmakers violate the Constitution, they will be answerable to us.

The trouble with this theory is Brown Vs. Board of education (which was reviewed approximately 50 years ago (1954). Hey, how about that? In that case a region (the south) was forcing black children to put up with inferior education and denying them access to equal education. Putting this injustice to a vote would have accomplished nothing, as blacks had limited freedoms at that time. So the matter was brought before the courts. The case made it's way to the Supreme Court and "separate but equal" was overturned.

You see there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority, which Ben's solution would do nothing to address.

Dirty Little Lies

Herman Cain's latest article is called Dirty Little Secrets. Here are some sections from it.

First, Democrats want President Bush's proposed personal retirement accounts off the negotiation table because Congress has already spent your money. That is because, in reality, there is no Social Security Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund is merely an accounting maneuver by which the government replaces your payroll taxes with IOUs to be redeemed at a later date.

This is a lie, as you all know. The Social Security Trust fund is invested in Government Treasuries.

The second dirty little secret is that personal retirement accounts do not really constitute privatization. Privatization means someone else owns your account. Bush's Social Security plan provides younger workers their own accounts that they control, not the government.

This is at best a half truth. The Bush Administration has suggested that with the money in your accounts you will be required to invest in an annuity upon retirement. Any excess money is yours to spend or give to your heirs, but the Annuity (which will be a big chunk of your account, anyway you look at it) will be non-transferable.

The third dirty little secret concerns the personal retirement add-on accounts some Democrats have hinted may bring them to the negotiation table. These add-on accounts would be available to workers on a voluntary basis, but do nothing to solve the solvency crisis or put workers in charge of their own money.

Another dirty little deception. The truth is that the President's accounts do nothing to solve the solvency problem either, as anybody with a basic understand of math could understand.

One new wrinkle, Mr. Cain prefers the word Long Term Solvency to permanent solution, but the effect seems much the same.

Obviously, long-term solvency of the Social Security system is not the Democrats' true long-term goal. Solvency cannot be achieved by reducing benefits, increasing taxes, and increasing government spending.

Technically this may be true. There is nothing the Democrats can do right now to ensure that Social Security remains permanently solvent. It's possible that small corrections right now could fix the problem for a quite a long time. Lifting the Payroll Cap for example. But will that really fix the problem forever? Can a problem like Social Security be solved on a long-term basis (Depending on what long term means. Removing the Social Security Cap fixes the problem for the next 75 years according to recent study by the Social Security Office. Is that long term enough?

Not if your real goal is to see Social Security as a program eliminated.

The Con Man Cometh

Another great Krugman article. I swear I looked at Townhall before coming here. But they had nothing interesting.

I do think it's interesting that Mr. Krugman takes Senator Lieberman to task, and in this case, it seems Mr. Lieberman deserves it. I'm not a Lieberman hater, although I think he's made a lot of wrong moves over the years. That said, Krugman convinces me that this was a particularly bad screw up.

My guess is that Mr. Lieberman thought he was being centrist and bipartisan, reaching out to Republicans by showing that he shares their concerns. At a time when the Democrats can say, without exaggeration, that their opponents are making a dishonest case for policies that will increase the risks facing families, Mr. Lieberman gave the administration cover by endorsing its fake numbers.

The push to privatize Social Security will probably fail all the same - but such attempts at accommodation may limit the Democrats' political gain.

There it is. If we admit the problem is as the Republicans pretend it is, than our unwillingness to accept their solution to the problem makes us look like obstructionist nincompoops. Instead we need to be very clear about how the Republican Party are pushing phony numbers and, more importantly, be clear about how their "solution" isn't a solution at all.

Everybody Knows what Everybody Knows

Not that this will come as much of a surprise to those of you who follow the Bush Administration, but apparently President Bush is using the tried and true formula of giving speeches only to those people who already agree with him. The Washington Post has the story.

The White House follows a practiced formula for each of the meetings. First it picks a state in which generally it can pressure a lawmaker or two, and then it lines up panelists who will sing the praises of the president's plan. Finally, it loads the audience with Republicans and other supporters.

Nothing particularly wrong with this strategy, but important that we all be aware of it. When Republicans want to pretend that the American people support President's plan, we shouldn't let them use these cheering crowds as proof.

Spinning the Spinning of the Spinning

As many of you know, John Kerry did not in fact defeat George W. Bush last November. This spawned a series of stories in which both sides tried to figure out who's fault that was. Did Kerry run a loser campaign? Did Bush run a great campaign? Was it MoveOn.Org's fault? And, most importantly, have the Democrats lost their way?

If you ask a conservative Republican this last question, the answer is clear. Democrats have lost their way, and we should all be like Zell Miller. Obviously, for a Conservative, the best answer is for America to have two conservative parties and no liberal parties (well maybe we can keep the Greens, since nobody pays that much attention to them anyway).

On the other hand, many liberals also believe we have lost our way. Frankly I doubt there is one liberal in a thousand who is completely satisfied about where the party is going. If that many. And since we just lost an election, it's time for a reevaluation.

The New Republic, a semi liberal magazine, recently ran a series of articles on the future of liberalism, which inspired Michael Barone to respond with his own thoughts. Basically he suggests that since a lot of individual liberals have different ideas on how to move the party forward, and some of those ideas are unfocused (as he presents them), Liberalism is dead in the water. Kind of like that old game of Telephone, only more done on purpose. Liberals are trying to figure out what to do next, so that shows they clearly don't know what to do next. Which is somehow damning.

Oh and Barone gets extra points for continuing to pretend that Liberals have no ideas on Social Security.

New Quote New Format

I haven't heard from the monster this week, although I have my feelers out.

Anyway in other news a new quote and a new format. Enjoy!