Ted Landau on Apple, politics, evolution, movies & whatever
Politics
Consider the Source
Oct 19th
Whenever I hear a claim of “fact,” or any sort of debatable assertion, my first caution is to “consider the source.” I’m not alone here. This is something we all do, at least to some extent. When we know that a claim has a self-serving bias, we add the appropriate measure of salt.
The veracity of Bob’s assertion that “Brenda is a selfish two-timing bitch” should obviously be tempered by the knowledge that Brenda just yesterday dumped Bob as her boyfriend.
Searching for a good plumber, you may happen to catch Joyce’s tweet that “Peter’s Plumbing is the best in town.” However, your faith in her recommendation will be sharply diminished if you discover that Peter is Joyce’s brother-in-law and that she gets a commission for all referrals.
And so it goes. You should always consider the source before passing judgement.
This is one huge reason why the current rules regarding political advertising desperately need to be fixed. With the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, corporations are not only free to spend almost unlimited amounts of money on attack ads, they can do so without revealing who paid for the ad. In other words, citizens have lost their critical ability to “consider the source.” This is especially critical when you consider that the majoity of these ads have been rated as “untrue” by organizations such as factcheck.org.
What can be done about this?
For one thing, we can push for new legislation and rulings that requires greater transparency regarding political advertisements. As noted in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, one such ruling by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission will accomplish this.
Unfortunately, it does not take effect until after this year’s election — and it only affects California.
Fortunately, there’s something effective YOU can do right now — whatever the rules may be. You can refuse to believe, be influenced by, or pay any attention to political ads — especially attack ads. This is not as difficult as it may sound. But it will take a bit of discipline. Personally, I have decided to stop listening to all news programs on television until after the election — from local news to ABC News to CNN and beyond. By doing so, I not only miss all the accompanying ads, I also avoid any discussion of the ads that might crop up during the program itself. For other programming, I use my DVR to record shows, so I can skip over any ads that show up there. Despite all this, an occasional ad still slips through — which I do my best to ignore.
If we all did this, political ads on television would become worthless. If politicians wanted our attention, they’d have to change their way of doing business. I’m too much of a realist to believe that we’ll see this happen any time soon. But I’m willing to start the ball rolling. How about you?
A Great Time for Democrats
Sep 23rd
What a great time to be a Congressional Democrat! Buoyed by President Obama’s immense popularity, Senators and Representatives are expected to ride the President’s coat tails to victories this November. By the time it’s all over, Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress should be even greater than they are today.
How did we get here? Democrats in Congress deserve much of the credit themselves, for the passage of several significant pieces of legislation even in the face of Republican opposition. But the ultimate credit belongs to the President, who has successfully navigated the Party through the difficult waters of the past two years.
Economy
Let’s start at the bottom: the economy. Yes, the economy is still in trouble (even though we just learned that the recession officially ended in June 2009). Unemployment is still far too high.
Still, Obama gets credit for saving our economy from a far worse near-certain disaster. Thanks to the President’s “financial stimulus package,” the situation today is far better than it would have otherwise been. At least that’s the consensus among economists, both progressive and conservative. If anything, their most common criticism has been that the stimulus did not go far enough.
Even the government “bail-out” of Chrysler and General Motors, which met with very mixed reviews at the time, now looks very smart — as these companies are out of bankruptcy and well on the road to recovery. And the taxpayers are expected to recoup their investment.
As if that was not enough, Obama led the way to the passage of the most significant financial reform legislation in decades. Among other things, it establishes a Consumer Protection Agency — which should allow the government to better serve as a consumer advocate against corporations. It also limits many of the recent excesses of banks, providing tighter controls of derivative sales and credit card fees. Overall, this is a huge win for the average American.
It doesn’t stop there. The Senate recently passed a long-stalled measure “to aid small businesses with tax breaks and expanded credit, a victory for President Obama after the bill was stalled for months by Republican opposition.” (NYT)
On a related front, President Obama continues his efforts to eliminate tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
Health Care
Probably the best place to look for the reasons behind Obama’s popularity is health care reform. Thanks to the passage of this landmark legislation, Americans can no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions or because of a change in their employment. Plus, millions of Americans who have never been able to afford insurance will now be covered. This is something that has been sought by Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, for more than a century. It took Obama to finally achieve this success. And he did so despite nearly universal opposition from a Republican party that was determined to do everything possible to undermine its passage.
Foreign Policy
While foreign policy has not been at the forefront of this year’s election debates, it’s worth noting that Obama has done admirably well here.
Fulfilling a campaign promise, he has pulled all combat troops out of Iraq — winding down a war that the public has long since wanted to see end.
Afghanistan remains a more difficult problem. Still, Obama has followed through on his campaign pledge to increase troop levels there as part of an overall strategy to stabilize — and ultimately improve — the position there. In his firing of General Stanley McChrystal and replacing him with General David Patraeus, Obama handled an awkward situation with the sort of leadership that even drew praise from Republicans.
Finally, he has rekindled hopes for a peace settlement in the Mideast by getting both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet for negotiations earlier this month.
Supreme Court
In less than two years in office, President Obama has successfully navigated the potentially treacherous political waters of Supreme Court nominations to have not just one but two nominees appointed to the bench. He did this despite the fact that both nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, carried the potential “political liabilities” of being women and from minority ethnic backgrounds — and (yet again) faced almost universal Republican opposition.
Republicans
Not all of the expected success of Democrats this fall is due to the achievements of Obama and the Democratic Party. They have been helped by the failure of Republicans. While neither political party is winning much praise right now, national polls consistently show that Republicans are even less popular than Democrats. They continue to be hurt by their reputation as the “party of no” — intent on blocking anything that Democrats attempt to do, yet offering no alternative vision of their own. And the far right’s views on social issues — such as abortion, gay marriage, religion in schools, and immigration — remain outside of the mainstream.
Obviously, not everything that Obama has done has met with overwhelming approval. Voters remain especially angry about the economy, as they see deficits rising and unemployment not going down. But voters are wise enough to know that Obama’s policies are not the primary causes of these problems. More to the point, Obama is doing much to improve matters. In contrast, Republicans represent a return to the policies that led us down this road in the first place. In the end, this is why Obama and the Democrats will emerge as the big winners come election night this November.
This column was written in an alternate universe. While all the achievements cited here are factually true, it is only in the alternate universe that these achievements have translated into popularity and political success for Obama and the Democrats. In the “real” universe, the situation is quite different.
The reason for this difference has more to do with a political climate that relies on lies and fear rather than on fact and rational thought. I’m not saying that there are no reasonable rebuttals to what I have written here. There are. But the overall story I’ve depicted, the “framing” of the situation, is at least as compelling as the distorted one that is now on the front pages — currently dominated by The Tea Party and the far right. In an alternate universe, one just ever so slightly different from the one we live in, my framing could well be the dominant one. However, it would have to be a universe where Democrats are much more politically adept at getting their message out, where extreme views (on both the left and especially the right) do not dominate the political climate, and where people’s opinions are mainly determined by what is actually true. In such a universe, for example, over 50% of Republicans would not believe that Obama is a Muslim. Conservatives could not get away with branding Obama as a “socialist” (and worse) from the day he took office. This is “spin,” not reality.
Unfortunately, for all Americans, we do not live in this alternate universe.
The GOP Takes the Lowest Road
Aug 19th
The other day, I posted a tweet that disparaged the GOP. It was in reference to an article describing the GOP’s collective stance regarding the building of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero in NYC. My specific comment was “I suppose GOP is capable of looking like bigger bottom-feeding crap, but it’s hard to imagine how.” In retrospect, I think “scum” would have gone better with “bottom-feeding” than “crap,” — but why quibble?
On Facebook, where my tweets are automatically reposted, someone replied: “Does that mean all who agree with the GOP are but lowly bottom-feeding crap as well? Just wondering.”
I took this question to mean: “Isn’t it possible to believe that the center should not be built at the designated location without being branded ‘bottom-feeding scum’? Can’t there be a legitimate difference of opinion here?”
The question made me aware, once again, of the pitfalls of Twitter’s 140 character limit. If you just decided to glance at the article I cited, rather than read it through — and especially without any additional clarification from me — my tweet could easily appear undeservedly harsh.
In an attempt to make my intent clearer, I replied to the Facebook query. To give this reply as wide an audience as possible, I repost it (in an edited and expanded version) here:
If by “agree,” you mean isn’t it possible to simply believe that the Islamic Center should ideally not be built at that location — then no, that does not by itself mean you are a “bottom feeder.” While I would vigorously debate such a belief, and contend that it is wrong, I recognize that there is room for valid differences of opinion here.
The problem is that the GOP, through its various speakers, has done much more than that. It’s the “more,” as described in the article I cited, that ultimately lead to my Twitter post.
To describe President Obama as “not like an American” for his defense of the center’s right to exist, for playing up the issue with the primary purpose of getting votes, for blindly agreeing to echo GOP playbook statements as if you are Stepford clones, for focusing on what should be essentially a minor local issue when there is so much more important stuff nationally to worry about, for distorting the matter by claiming the building is a “mosque” to be built on “hallowed ground” when such is not the case, for hypocritically ignoring the fact (as seen here) that strip clubs and OTB establishments are already in this same location, for consistently resorting to name-calling and emotional oversimplifications as a political strategy, and mainly for encouraging people’s worst fears and prejudices for short-term political gain — if that’s what you mean by “agree,” then I would say yes, all such people are bottom-feeding scum.
And while I’m on the subject — just how many blocks away would the center have to be before it would be okay with the GOP to build it? And what if the terrorists had been Catholic? Would the GOP have been against building a Catholic church at the same location? Somehow, I doubt it.
In the end, while the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks were Islamic, this doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists. While the truth of this syllogism should be obvious, it seems to have eluded the GOP. To truly show how this country is different from its enemies, we should showcase how we defend religious freedom, even when we don’t always agree with the specifics. The GOP wants to do the opposite.
During World War II, we rounded up innocent Japanese-American citizens and placed them in internment camps. At the time, with fear and prejudice running high, it seemed (at least to some) as the right thing to do. Today, we view it as an embarrassing stain on our historical record. Although the GOPs position here is less extreme, I strongly believe that we will some day look back on the GOP’s September 11-related prejudices and extreme nationalism (from “Freedom Fries” to “No mosque on hallowed ground”) with a similar sense of embarrassment. I can hardly wait.
Predictably Partisan
May 31st
In a recent NYT Op-Ed column, conservative commentator David Brooks wrote: “In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the political debate has fallen into predictably partisan and often puerile categories. Conservatives say this is Obama’s Katrina. Liberals say the spill is proof the government should have more control over industry.”
Although I doubt it was Mr. Brooks’ intention, his quote puts the spotlight on an common and significant difference between Conservatives (typically Republicans) and Liberals (typically Democrats) — with the Conservatives winding up on the wrong side of the tracks.
Liberals “predictably” argue for more “government control.” Increased government regulation is indeed one common goal of liberals. Liberals would argue that, while government is far from perfect and can contribute to wasteful spending, unregulated business is the greater of two evils. Under the best circumstances, government serves as the watchdog for the “common man,” the citizen without the money, power and lobbyists to otherwise compete with the interests of big business. You (especially if you are a conservative) may disagree with this position. But you cannot dispute that it is a legitimate political position — a statement of principle.
Conservatives’ main arguments (at least according to Mr. Brooks) are typically statements such as “this is Obama’s Katrina.” Rather than a statement of principle or indication of what action they might propose — it amounts to name-calling. The intent is to disparage Obama at every opportunity and thereby, hopefully, gain a political advantage. I also find it ironic (as John Stewart similarly pointed out) that this particular Conservative tactic rests on comparing Obama’s actions to an even larger screw-up by his Conservative predecessor, George W. Bush. Not to mention that, at the time of Katrina, these same Conservatives were likely supportive of Bush. In other words, they are not only name-callers but hypocritical name-callers.
I don’t mean to suggest that Liberals always take the high-ground and are never guilty of similar behavior. But, on average, you are much more likely to see things split this way than not. Remember, I am not the one who initially made this point. I’m just the messenger. The message originates with an acknowledged Conservative — pointing out what is readily taken as the “predictable” truth.
What’s worse here is that, what the Conservative side of the debate lacks in principle and honesty, it makes up for in emotional appeal and political effectiveness. Shouting phrases like “Obama’s Katrina” over and over again on Fox News resonates with their political base much more than anything that Liberals manage to do. That’s one key reason that Liberals too often come out on the losing side of these “debates” with Conservatives — regardless of the relative merits of their “predictable” positions. As long as the public rewards Conservatives for their approach, the situation is unlikely to change. If anything, in this current hyper-partisan climate, I only see things getting worse in the months and years ahead.