DB Politics

polls and politics

2010-03-17T05:54:00.003-05:00

I hear results of various polls cited by the politicians and political pundits alike in support or in opposition to whatever the subject of contention may be. Recently the health care reform has been the subject of vicious debate across the nation and in the various halls of government, from local to federal.

Now, how many of us actually critically think through those results. For example, the Rasmussen Polls report results of national telephone survey on health care reform showing the majority of those polled in opposition to the "plan."

I wish I could also find in those same reports the actual questions being asked. Most important question in that context would be whether or not the person being interviewed actually studied the "plan." Without that piece of information, the results are meaningless.

death is a death is a death

2009-11-10T17:09:00.006-06:00

It almost seems that a death of a soldier hits home in a worse way than a death of a worker. Death is a death is a death, but somehow we hear all the time about those prematurely taking out military personnel, but almost never of those striking men and women who make the stuff and provide services we use.

According to a federal government report, there were 5,071 industrial deaths in 2008 (down from 5,657 the year before).

According to a Congressional Research Service report, there were 1,441 military fatalities in 2008 (down from 1,953 the previous year).

Does this nation value more those who fight, albeit in the name of defending the nation, than those who make things for us to use, thus building the nation? What would you conclude, if anything?

The audacity of what?

2009-11-04T10:22:00.002-06:00

This whole Obamania thing started with the "Audacity of hope" and now we have "The Audacity of Winninig." As Ariana Huffington says it nicely,

"How did the candidate who got into the race because he'd decided that "the core leadership had turned rotten" and that "the people were getting hosed" become the president who has decided that the American people can only have as much change as Olympia Snowe will allow?"

Well, no politicians that I know have the cajones to really put up the fight, to really stand up for what they believe. They all calculate, strategize, and eventually succumb to what seems to be doable, rather than what is desirable. Why would Pres Obama be any different. Those who thought he would be, suffered from delusions. So did I, regretfully for my old age.

Karzai

2009-11-02T13:58:00.004-06:00

It's perplexing! This thing where Karzai is declared the winner of the so-called election in Afghanistan.

Some time ago, the UN said that up to one third of the votes cast for Karzai were fraudulent. Then they set up the run-off to appease the brewing unrest. Finally, Karzai's opponent withdrew.

What a smokescreen! I mean, are we supposed to be totally stupid. I certainly do not know all the facts, or even most of the facts, but this whole Karzai thing really smacks of PR game.

And, on top of that, all the major players immediately congratulated Karzai. What a farce! But it is not surprising.

Obama and Nobel

2009-10-12T10:21:00.011-05:00

Well, it's been now a few days since that announcement one early morning last week. The frisky and sometimes vitriolic debate is by no means subsiding. And that is both from the left and from the right and all the places in between. Ideological accusations, summary condemnations, demeaning belittling, and all sorts of similarly colored declarations fly all over the public spectrum.

I am sitting back and thinking of one simple thing. Folks are asking "what has he done?" as if the president is supposed to take a hammer in his hands and actually physically create something or lock up folks in a basement and make them love each other. We forget that the president is a politicians, he is a manager. And what do those folks do? Well, they offer a vision and facilitate creation of an environment in which folks would want to make that vision a reality. Their power is their vision expressed in their words.

If we can accept that, then let's see what President Obama has done.

Has he offered a vision for the country and for the world? Judge for yourself.
Has he intrigued and mobilized masses of people in this country and around the world and created an atmosphere in which multitudes can adopt his vision, however it may be modified through a personal prism, and work on its realization? Judge for yourself.

Has he created enemies? or at least made them come out of the woodwork? Sure he has.

Another way to look at the "controversy" is to see what Nobel Peace Prize Committee offered as their reasoning behind awarding the prize to President Obama. They said that they awarded President Obama the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Only two questions are relevant:

is that a good reason to reward a person with a prize and
is that a true characterization of President Obama's work

Anything else is superfluous and serves as self-aggrandizing, self-righteous posturing.

If your answer to the first question is no, so be it! It is an opinion one way or another which can not be scientifically supported by facts. It is a judgment call, which is why the prize is awarded by a committee of people, not by some computer program. Once you have your own committee for your own prize to be awarded out, you can set your own, presumably better, rules.

As for the answer to the second question, that too can not be scientifically proven or disputed - ergo a committee to pass judgment. Yours may be different and so "once you have ..... "

So feel free to feel one way or another, but, please focus on the right questions.

Homosexual acts and same sex marriage

2009-08-11T19:35:00.002-05:00

It just occurred to me that in the same-sex debate I hear frequently people stating how such-and-such religion prohibits homosexual acts and therefore same-sex marriage is prohibited by extension, which got me a bit confused, frankly.

First, I do not find those same people defining homosexual acts, but it may be safe to assume that by homosexual act, people mean sex in all of its forms with a person of the same sex/gender. Okay, fine.

(I hope we do not ever have a law somewhere defining sexual acts.)

But then, what has that got to do with marriage? Marriage is not about sex, is it? It may be about sex, in addition to many other things, but not necessarily.

So, I wonder about the following scenario. Say two persons of the same sex want to marry and they commit not to engage in any "homosexual acts" with each other, however they, the homosexual acts, may be defined. Would that be okay? I mean, there is no requirement of the married couple to have sex with each other, no?

(I hope we do not ever have a law somewhere defining those acts married couple must do with each other in order to maintain the married status.)

Executive bonuses

2009-08-02T05:41:00.002-05:00

Mr. Hall (from Citigroup) is in the news. Should receive his 100 million dollar bonus for good performance. Difficult question these days. In today's climate, this might be a problem. Mr. Hall seems to think so. He is currently looking for an alternative job, probably at a company who did not receive bailout money.

I have a simple solution. Capitalism, which I support, should support companies paying bonuses in proportion to the money earned. However, the percentage of profit should be moderate. Mr. Hall generated 5 billion in profits for Citigroup in the past 5 years. 100 million is 2 percent of this total. This seems reasonable, *if* the profit is for work done in the past 5 years.

However, what if he loses money for the company one year? In that case, I believe the salary should be decreased by the same percentage, or he should owe money accordingly. Thus, if he lost 5 billion for the company one year, he would have to return 100 million dollars. In that way, it is the employee who pay the company for failure. This kind of rule would give the manager incentive to take less risk. Less gain, but also less loss. On the other hand, it would not prevent some managers from taking continued risk: the managers who truly believe they are good.

Health care overhaul

2009-07-31T18:06:00.002-05:00

In principle, I am against government-run health care because the government has a poor record of running programs efficiently and on budget. On the other hand, I fully understand that health services in this country are out of control, are rising at a yearly rate much higher than inflation, shut out many people from reasonable health care. Of course, one could ask: why should we live beyond 70 years old? Some people stay healthy longer. Of course. So why must we keep people on life support or keep treating people who are terminally ill once they can no longer take care or themselves? What is the point. Ok, so we do not like euthanasia. So let us work within the current system.

There is too much partisanship. Our congressmen (of both parties), make decisions based on electability rather than on what is good for the country. How do I know? Because if they were given a quiz on the health care bill, I would wager good money that they could not answer questions as to content.

Before any statements are made as to our current system (whether by the president, or by our representatives), and before I decide what is best, let us get the answer to the following questions:

1) How much do all the insured pay per year to health care insurance providers (total, per insured inhabitant, and per inhabitant, whether insured or not)

2) How much of health care insurance is disbursed to court proceedings to handle suits (frivolous or not), pay lawyers, give rewards, etc.

3) How much of health care is actually given for doctor salaries

4) How much of health care pays hospital procedures

5) How much of health care pays for senior centers, long term care facilities, etc.

6) More breakdown that I have not considered

Only once we know the answers to the above questions, can we answer objectively:

1) why is health care increasing much more than insurance?

2) why should people on government insurance have access to the latest technology that people with expensive health care packages have access to?

3) what are the projected rise in costs over the next 20 years

(I doubt that projected cost increases take into account suing for example)

Given that these questions are not asked or answered shows me how non-serious everybody is about health care reform, and I include the president in this group.

President's stupid comment

2009-07-23T09:02:00.005-05:00

I did not hear President's news conference Wed night, but reading the news reports I must say that he made a very stupid comment when asked to comment on the events surrounding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, in his home Monday, Mr Obama reportedly said:

"Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

What makes your remark stupid, Mr. president, is that you did acknowledge not knowing all the facts surrounding the arrest of Mr Gates, yet you issued your judgment about the work of those particular law enforcement officers involved in the incident. Very, very bad and shamefully stupid remark, Mr. President, regardless of anything else involved. You should know better than that!

Buying vaporware

2009-05-19T16:13:00.004-05:00

So, there is all this hoopla about unfair banking practices, customers lured into contracts attractive at first, but with unsustainable conditions later on causing people to default, etc., etc. And the vendors are usually blamed for greed, conning, etc.

But, what about our individual responsibility to make informed buying decisions? I can understand if the language is really obscure. But sometimes language is right there starring us in the face and yet, we still go for it.

For example, I just today purchased an item on line and dutifully signed away any vendor's responsibility for the product by agreeing to the following language:

Because each application is unique, XXXXXX makes no warranty as to the merchantability or suitability of any product for a particular use, nor will we be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages that may arise from the use or sale of our product.

If things go wrong, I deserve no sympathy for my unwise buying decision.

How many times did you agree to such conditions or signed a long tightly typed document without reading it?

A whole lotta B.S.

2009-03-15T10:14:00.000-05:00

After being gone for three weeks and two weeks back in the country, I watched the Sunday talking heads series on ABC/CBS/NBC. Various government officials are being questioned mostly about the on-going economic/financial crisis. And, did I learn anything new? No! I heard just a whole lot of hot air, excuses, insinuations, pretense, politicking. Well, what did I expect?

One thing that sticks out in my mind is this issue of the so-called bonuses paid out to various financial institutions executives. My government dished a whole lotta dough in our name to these institutions and we are getting a whole lotta B.S. back.

We ask how come execs are personally getting millions from our money for running those businesses into the ground. We are told, you know, it's all these contracts and such which need to be honored; we honor contracts in this country; we are a country of laws.

Well, that may be so, but let me see. A bonus, in my book, is what you get for something you did well! A so-called bonus is not a bonus if it is contractually guaranteed and not being performance related, no?

What am I missing in this picture? For example, I am told that my government owns 80% of AIG on my behalf and is not empowered to force it to behave! Something is really, really rotten in this historic scam.

change vs experience

2008-11-19T09:13:00.000-06:00

As Pres-elect Obama is gathering his team, there are cries out there that he is betraying his "change" mantra by considering and appointing seasoned Washington operators for key cabinet and staff positions. What those voices are forgetting or choose to forget if the the President is in charge of the vision and direction and tom a large extent the implementation of those.

What he needs is a team of folks who can get things done, not folks who would be "yes" men and women. So, in the nutshell it is perfectly reasonable to bring into the executive branch those who know how to execute plans. In my view, Hillary Clinton would be a welcome addition to the cabinet. Details can be worked out.

believe it or not

2008-11-14T11:49:00.000-06:00

A friend asked me the other day:

"Perhaps you could explain the following:

"From newspapers and radio:

"More and more people have mortgages that are worth less than the worth of their house, so that these people have negative cash flow. As if that were a bad thing, and I do not even understand. If your job has not changed, and you could afford your mortgage, then nothing has changed. The value of your home decreasing would decrease your taxes (theoretically), and if you had to sell, so what? This is a great opportunity to purchase a home as well. Now, if you have lost your job, then it is another matter, but it has nothing to do with the decreasing value of your home. People should not be borrowing against their home as a matter of principle. It is probably those people who are in dire straits, and they should be!"

And, so I said:

It is mostly those who risked and took out mortgages at the adjustable rate, lured by low monthly payments to start with which then went up beyond what they could afford, thinking perhaps that they could re-finance, scoop up some resulting cash (if the prices kept going up), and thus keep on riding the wave. Well, the wave receded and they fell flat on their backs.

Additionally, even if mortgage payments did not go up, prices of other items did, thus reducing the available cash for other purposes (repairs, medical costs, entertainment, transportation, etc. etc.).

In my view, unless I can be reasonably certain to be able to afford future higher payments or be able to sell the home at a higher price, I would be really stupid to get into the variable rate mortgage deals I can not afford. In my view, those who did should lose their homes.

The reality is that all this hubbub about rescuing homeowners is another lie and deception. It has nothing to do with being humane but has everything to do with keeping the top echelons afloat and opening huge holes for future speculation and huge rip-offs of our money. How can you explain huge daily ups and downs in the stock market? Some, possibly those who actually have an influence on the direction market goes, are pocketing huge, unheard of super-profits.

These times are fantastic for speculators who also dare to manipulate the market as our attention is being kept elsewhere, they are reaping gigantic profits (4-6%, or even 1-2% daily is huge). If I had the desire to gain in this way I would be a very happy guy these days. You don't hear Buffets and the like complain, do you? I've got nothing against him and his ilk, more power to them!

This is like some whales fish. First they circle and circle tighter and tighter around and below a school of herrings, frighten them into a "corner," and then just scoop them up with open mouths without them even knowing what befell them. Like sheep running behind a blind ram and peacefully falling off the cliff. Except this ram is not blind but pretends he is and has a golden parachute attached to his back.

I could go on and on about this. I am not angry about it. I just continue to be disappointed in human race, disappointed in those who are willing to follow false prophets, follow something without knowing what it is they are really following. But, you know that's how I am. I want to understand before I accept. I am not much of a believer, which sometimes drives you mad.

And then he said:

"True. However I do agree with your analysis. I believe very little of what I hear. I ask questions as well. However, tango* is different from economy. And related to economy, one can be frozen and do nothing. I like you, have no sympathy for those who made poor decisions or were conned into doing so."

I thought this was sufficiently interesting, so -- here it is.

* my friend and I share passion for tango.

So-called "free market"

2008-11-11T09:00:00.000-06:00

NPR's Morning Edition Sunday, Nov 11, 2008 reports:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA) says she's disturbed by reports that some inauguration tickets are being sold online for as much as $40,000. She says she's writing to eBay and other sites to make sure they're not involved in ticket scalping. The 240,000 available tickets are supposed to be free to the public, and given out through congressional offices. Feinstein is also working on a bill that would make it a federal crime to sell tickets to the inauguration."

So now in this country which wants open markets around the world, free trade, which champions individual initiative, entrepreneurship, etc., etc., etc., a US Senator is disturbed that that same entrepreneurship might net some not-so-creative people some super profits. She wants to make it a federal crime. Wow, I am impressed by this hypocrisy.

Since when are we not supposed to take advantage of the supposedly free market and provide goods where there is a demand? Isn't that essential for free market capitalism.

Now what?

2008-11-07T21:16:00.000-06:00

I must admit that it was fantastic to see the results of the presidential election on Tuesday. There is a score of reasons to celebrate. Lots of symbolism and victories on multiple fronts. I hope that, for one, they are not swallowed into the labyrinth of Democratic Party, which is a very autocratic, hierarchical political machine demanding party discipline in carrying out party's platform and not tolerating disobeying the authority of the "leaders.".

One of those victories is a new direction the country is promised to take under the leadership of President(-elect) Barack Obama. Assuming that that new direction will be undertaken, the success of its realization highly depends on how those in the base are able, willing, and allowed to shape that general, national direction into their specific local one and how well they implement it in their day-to-day actions.

A burning question related to that is how well those massive numbers of volunteers working on electing Candidate Obama president will now be engaged in the work ahead.

Candidate Obama spoke frequently of how change and development comes from the bottom up and not the other way around. I am waiting to see it realized. Will the base be allowed to take charge or not. Will all those volunteers, first, stick around and then, second, be allowed to actively shape the agenda appropriate for their particular socio-political environment.

If the answer to both question is "yes," we just might see a watershed moment for the world. The opportunity is there. Are we ready to take it?

Greenspan's mistake

2008-10-25T09:09:00.000-05:00

Alan Greenspan: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

What his mistake really is is to believe that organizations behave like people do. There is no such thing as "self-interest of organizations." It might have existed at some point in the past, but in the era of high mobility of information, financial resources, and those individuals in decision making roles (various types of CEOs and such), perceived individual interests of decision makers do not coincide with those of the rest of the organizations even of their owners and so decision makers make decisions in their own perceived self-interest and move on to a different client/victim.

In addition to the ever increasing mobility of resources, another factor contributes to this new way of running business. It is the fact that the ownership of most organizations today is diluted, it is spread among huge multitude of small owners who (1) are too busy with their principal life supporting activity and/or are not educated and/or informed enough to study the issues and thus make quality decisions and consequently (2) delegate their decision making power of stockholders to the select few (either very large individual stockholders who are mostly doing just fine these days, or various funds where decisions are again made by the technocrats).

So, old Greenspan's mistake is not to take into account the effect of technological advances which changed the landscape of capitalism profoundly and continue to change it.

Political signs

2008-10-25T08:02:00.000-05:00

I wonder if there is a city/county (Tallahassee/Leon) ordinance covering display of political signs. Do you know anything about it?

I had a presidential campaign sign displayed in front of my home for a few days only to wake up this morning and see it missing. I hope someone took it in order to display it in his or her yard :-) I see these signs displayed in my neighborhood and I do not think I violated any ordinance covering the display any differently than my neighbors have done whose signs are still up. Of course, one obvious possibility is that someone just did not like seeing my sign and decided to take it down. But, I am looking for other explanations. It was not the wind or any other act of nature, I am fairly sure of that.

What do you think?

Change

2008-09-14T13:09:00.000-05:00

It is just amusing to me, this change thing. Both major nominees proclaim they will change politics in Washington. And many of their colleague supporters sitting in the audiences at the convention or other occasions dutifully nod in support.

And I am thinking to myself, who is is that determines how things are done in Washington? I am sure the nominees do not mean they would want to change the way garbage is being picked up or mass transportation managed. They certainly mean that they want to change the way government (of the people) works.

Well them, who is it that needs to make those changes? It seems to me that it is all those representatives and senators sitting and nodding their heads in approval of what the nominees are promising to do.

So, why are they waiting to indeed make them changes, whatever them changes may be, if they so happily agree that the changes are needed and coming (only if their candidate wins, of course)? Why not start now? Why wait for January?

Something just does not compute in all that for me. What do you think? More of the same political baloney? Yeap. I'd say so. Baloney ... and whoever buys it is getting close to nothing for a very high price.

Stupidity

2008-08-11T12:05:00.000-05:00

"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion."

That is attributed to John McCain as he was talking about current developments in Georgia (the country) and as it was reported in " McCain warns Russians of "severe, long-term negative consequences" ." So, does that imply that John McCain actually favors Christianity being adopted as an official (state) religion? I hope not, but it certainly sounds like that to me.

Legitimate questions

2008-07-01T10:47:00.003-05:00

It makes me sick how quick everyone, lead by the media hungry for sensations, seems to be to bury the questioner for asking legitimate questions.

Look at this latest episode with Gen Clark. Without quoting, it seems to me that at least one of the things he is saying, or at least is implying, is that we should all be more informed on what exactly that "military experience" of Sen McCain is or was. What is wrong with wanting to know the details in order to make educated, intelligent decisions? Especially since that experience is often used as one of the important arguments for his fitness to be the president. Should we just follow what some authority out there says? I do not think so.

But no! Gen Clark is now atacked from all sides for asking clarifying questions about Sen McCain's military experience or his service to the country, you name it.

I think Gen Clark's questions were legitimate and many of us, including myself, might want to know the answers to them. Plus, from what I know, he did not volunteer that subject, he was apparently asked by an interviewer to offer his judgment on the value of Sen McCain's military experience.

When making such crucial decisions like electing a president, it would be very irresponsible not to ask those sorts of questions -- not as challenges disputing the significance of the claim, but rather as requests for more information.

Unless, of course, we are supposed to remain ignorant and elect the president based on how much we (dis)like the nominee in general or on how many signs we see in our neighborhoods supporting a nominee. In either case, people get presidents they deserve.

Mrs. Michelle Obama

2008-06-21T16:21:00.001-05:00

Mrs. Obama is fabulously sexy - I'd just love to have a hug with her (and dance a tango). Her demeanor reveals a thoughtful, self-confident, kind person. She is both deep and child-like in the same time. And then she is also beautiful. Her walk is, well, quite inspiring. What an attractive combination! How about Michelle Obama to represent the US, a new US in the world! Yes!

Too bad that the Pres and the VP can not, by law, be from the same state. (take a look)

To Sen McCain

2008-06-13T05:39:00.000-05:00

According to CNN:

"I think people in the media and observers will make a decision as to whether these people, individuals, should be part of Sen. Obama's campaign," McCain said in Boston, Massachusetts, on Thursday [June 12, 2008].

Thank you Sen McCain for being deligent about finding things out about other people, finding the truth, but, your conclusion above is preposterous. "Media and observers" should be the last in line of decision makers regarding the matter.

The sad part is that those in the media and those observers do seem to feel called upon to indeed make the decisions mentioned.

I still can't figure him out

2008-06-08T20:50:00.000-05:00

Sen Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Pres of the USA, gave a speech to the campaign staff in Chicago, Feb 6, 2008. It was nice to see him talk to those who work behind the scene to keep that train moving.

But, I am still not sure I know who he really is under his skin. I hope we get to know him better in the months to come.

Obama and political progress

2008-06-06T07:21:00.000-05:00

What does Obama's nomination and potential presidency mean for the evolutionary progress in the political life of the US and the world? If you listen to him carefully, you will quickly realize that he is no progressive beyond his rhetoric and even there he slips. Take his speech to the AIPAC Conference June 4, for example, where he said, among other things:

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. " (read).

First off, why does he feel called upon to have an opinion on the state of State of Israel and that of Jerusalem? It seems to me that a progressive thinking would direct one to favour those affected, those who live in the affected region, to have a safe way of deciding for themselves what it is exactly they want and how they want to organize their lives. The best a world power can and perhaps should do is support a process which would yield a just solution whose architects would be those affected by it -- a process called self-determination.

Second, even his statement itself carries a contradiction. Unless Obama favours undivided Jerusalem to be a capital of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state (not an impossibility), how can he argue for a "contiguous and cohesive" Palestinian state which excludes Jerusalem?

Another example. On many occasions, he felt a need to declare that he was not a Muslim (I wish that his pronunciation of the word "Muslim" was more in agreement with that that I heard many Muslims prefer). I was hoping that at least once he would take an opportunity to point out that nothing would be wrong with him being a Muslim, anyway. Or, is that not the case?

Those examples point out that even his much-trumpeted speeches leave out much to be desired. So, where are the opportunities for true progress?

Just like Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign did in 1988, Obama's campaign attracted many new voices and included them into the political process. And herein lies an opportunity. This mass of grassroots volunteers can be transformed into a formidable movement which could provide a progressive alternative to a status quo. But, the initiative can not be expected to come from Barack Obama for a number of reasons. If it were to materialize at all, this new, progressive, alternative movement must remain genuine, it must grow from the bottom -- it must self-organize.

Why Obama?

2008-06-03T06:50:00.000-05:00

What makes it marginally of interest for me to support Sen. Obama's presidential campaign has nothing to do with his proposed and/or supported policies (he often manages to make me think twice about supporting his campaign with his extremist pronouncements like "I will keep embargo on Cuba"), but rather the perceived effect the campaign has had on the grassroots organizing.

The organizing momentum of the campaign may result in a genuine and sustained grassroots movement for a positive change, regardless of how unprogressive Sen. or Pres. Obama may end up being, which may really live on as a bottom-up sort of phenomenon, the only one that can work for the masses.

Keep up the pressure.

McClellan

2008-06-01T04:47:00.000-05:00

Watching all the hoopla surrounding the "revelations" contained in McClellan's What Happened book from the sidelines, one has to wonder about the Washington DC-center US media. Many are exhibiting an astonishment about those revelations, some go as far as asking "should people look at everything coming out of the White House with a gain of salt?" (Anderson Cooper interviewing Scott McClellan).

Dah! That is your job, the media person! You must question everything anybody says to ensure that you are presenting the whole picture or risk being taken as an extension of the office providing you with the talking points. Is it not obvious that the essence of politics is to try to convince others in the correctness of your point of view and get them to support you in the efforts to implement your ides? I mean, that is politics 101. Every spokesperson is not only disseminating the facts but is definitely coloring them so that the public sees those facts through the politician's eyes.

Why now such an outcry at someone actually admitting what should have been known all along? Perhaps it is because Scott McClellan is stirring up trouble for the news media persons around DC (and elsewhere, I suppose) and causing some of them a discomfort for now having to work harder to get the whole picture, because we, the public, are now told that many things we are offered as news are really the spin.

Interesting times unless the messenger is killed because those affected did not like the message.

"Penalizing" Florida

2008-05-31T07:14:00.000-05:00

I just heard someone on C-SPAN stating that since the Republican-controlled legislature in Florida moved the primary date, voters in Florida, and especially those who voted in democratic primary, should not be "penalized" by not being seated at the convention.

Well, that is perhaps the price they had to pay for helping to elect Republican majority in state legislature in the first place. This is how things work in a democracy.

Public discourse

2008-05-25T09:54:00.000-05:00

It never ceases to amaze me how the so-called "public" discourse is conducted through the media these days. The news snippets and the clearly and perhaps maliciously skewed interpretations of those snippets all lead to a distraction from what really matters.

Take the statements by Senator Clinton about the 1992 primary and the 1968 one (reference to Bill Clinton and the RFK). Those who wanted to be sensational and controversial, I speculate, interpreted Sen Clinton implying that something terrible might happen to Sen Obama and thus she should stick around. I think that that misinterpretation is so ugly that those who are driven by it and continue to harp it over and over should suffer a good dosage of tar-and-feathering.

Those in the news business do this fear mongering probably for the purpose of increasing viewership through sensationalism and I can not blame them for that, however. This is capitalism, after all, and the only measure of success is the bottom line for the owners of the business enterprise, which is what the media are -- they are business enterprises. If the general public were more savvy they would shut those fear mongers off and thus cause them to get it right for once, perhaps.