Part of a response...
I cede the pont that there is something exceptional about the united states that is derived in some part from our proud heritage. What I want to know is how should being exceptional inform our actions around the world?
But first I want to address Will's (hi Will, nice to meet you) point about net benefits. I think there is a danger in reducing this analysis to a mathematical expression. On one hand, it's clear that more benefits minus less harm reaps a net benefit for the world. But off the scratch pad, the two sides don't always cancel each other out because the benefit might not ultimately come to the person who is harmed.
For example, what you get when you pay 100 Pauls by robbing 50 Peters is 50 pissed-off Peters. In domestic economic policy that would rightfully be called a coercive redistribution of wealth. Which, as recent protests in America have shown, has a tendency rub people the wrong way.
But the real question is, as exceptionalists, what principles should we undertake and what are the guidelines we need to follow to enact those principles? Bolton starts his piece talking about exceptionalism as a value, but I don't see how he is suggesting it should be applied. In North Korea Obama's lack of action against the regime there is condemned yet his more forceful ascertions in the Israeli-palestinian conflict is also not part of exceptionalism.
Does it mean we go to war to fight for a free press (Russia,China)? Can we seize any assets we believe support despots (Saudi Arabia, Quwait)? Can we remove children from backward cultures to teach them 21st century skills? How much do we really want to support the global citizen's right to bear arms?
Again, I'm not arguing that we not be exceptional, I'm trying to discover what foreign policy principles grow out of it. I have tried to suggest in my comments that a strategic approach would be to lead by example, be exceptional in our actions with other global actors without hiding behind it as a blank check excuse to be bent to every political whim.
Exceptionalism is a capital to be invested wisely, applied judiciously because it's missapplication poisons the well a little bit more each time. It only gives ammunition to our enemies in the global struggle for hearts and minds. And, it let's the other democracies off the hook when it comes time to stand up on principle.
-- Mobile and Free
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
San Francisco Seasons
All around the country Americans experience the passing of time by noting the changes in the seasons. They pass through a living clockwork, marking time in the color of the leaves or the freshness of the ice. But not in San Francisco. Nature condemned her to a perpetual indian summer wedged precariously between two fog banks.
Since the seasons cannot be measured by the change in the leaves, in San Francisco, it is measured by the change in the hipsters whose new fashion fads come rolling in with a trickle and steadily build to a torrent by high season. Leaving San Franciscans nothing but to gather together around the hearth and comment on what a long bearded-hipster it was this year, or I hope cheap-white-sunglasses-hipster is dry so we can get the corn in by the 4th.
Since the seasons cannot be measured by the change in the leaves, in San Francisco, it is measured by the change in the hipsters whose new fashion fads come rolling in with a trickle and steadily build to a torrent by high season. Leaving San Franciscans nothing but to gather together around the hearth and comment on what a long bearded-hipster it was this year, or I hope cheap-white-sunglasses-hipster is dry so we can get the corn in by the 4th.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The last human coders
The last human coders
A dank tech office is the last place where people still work in the
unified computer system. There a group of scholars are in charge of
coding the small bits of information that the computer can't classify.
The office is full of pasty academics chosen for there penchant for
the obscure and the esoteric. Every year they have less work to do.
Day by day they are classifying, categorizing, and identifying
themselves toward oblivion.
The building was five stories high and squated decrepidely across the
whole block at forest between eighth and elm streets. Once, the
Department of Digitization filled the entire structure with analysts
and engineers, buzzing about the business of teaching the Antel DXT
about the world.
Now the waters of this rich delta had receded all the way back the the
source deep in sub basement d. The last terminals int the building
were set up around the main cable trunk as it came in from deep
underground.
But one of the coders realizes something. She sees a thread of
information start to come in that disturbs her and leads he on an
adventure to find out.
Motion is the key
Motion is the key component to the new visual input.
Get rid of stAtic past and embrace liquid future.
Get rid of stAtic past and embrace liquid future.
Some People from Valley HS and the Government
Josh Brown Thinks that instead of writing amendments to define marriage, and instead of fighting for who the government should and should not allow to get married- maybe everyone should be thinking of a way to keep government as far away from marriage as possible- no matter who wants to get married. Then we can all get married to whoever we want. Seriously, there are better things for a government to be concerned with.
Rob Schebel at 11:43am June 8
How are you going to delineate who gets benefits and who doesn't, then?
Josh Brown at 11:47am June 8
I don't know- but I'd rather the federal government didn't have the power over it.
J.R. Ward at 11:48am June 8
As much as I agree with you... I do think the government is much better suited to deal with this than religious organizations.
Rob Schebel at 11:48am June 8
Universal health care would solve that problem.
Josh Brown at 11:52am June 8
But JR, the religious organizations don't run marriage. When was the last time someone had to get a marriage LICENSE from the church? They don't. Many people are still using the old traditional religious ceremonies, but often, they don't have any say in marital law, licensing, or who can/can't get married. And really what I'm saying here is ... Read Morethat as long as two people want to get married- why does the government have anything to do with that? Doesn't seem much like a governmental matter, does it? Someone please list out all the tremendous benefits that the federal government gives us for being married. Last I checked, tax wise, there is a marriage PENALTY.
Rob Schebel at 11:53am June 8
Generally, you have to be married under the law to share insurance benefits with your spouse and children.
J.R. Ward at 12:00pm June 8
The Church use to administrate the "laws" for marriage.. and I'm glad they don't today. There have to be "rules" for contracts and the best option for that right now is the American Judicial system unless someone can come up with a better option OR not make marriage a binding contract... But that wouldn't make it the special bond that it is then. Hell I don't know I've been single all my life and I'm more than happy not getting married anytime soon... *laugh*
Daniel Brown at 1:21pm June 8
Universal health care will solve nothing but the extra cash I have left at the end of a month. We need less government in stuff like marriage, healthcare, and every other damn thing..
Jessica Bell at 1:28pm June 8
I don't like the government telling me which "charities" to donate to... when they take my money, and give it to someone else, isn't that a simplistic form of charity? There should be checkbox I can check/uncheck. As far as marriage is concerned... I don't have an answer, but everything shouldn't be tied to it. Just because a system worked 50 years ago doesn't mean we have to make it fit now, right?
Josh Brown at 1:30pm June 8
Aye, Jess. The less government involved in our lives, the better. Take a look at your tax forms, and tell me you want that level of hell for your medical coverage. That won't reform health care- it will make it impossible.
J.R. Ward at 1:38pm June 8
Yeah.. tax forms are messed up... I think people should just give what they want and hope that our government can run the country on charity donations.
Josh Brown at 1:39pm June 8
Well, you CAN do that :P but that's in addition to what they'll automatically take.
J.R. Ward at 1:41pm June 8
ok.. I'm liberal but not stupid.. *laugh* I'm not giving any donations to the government...
Lewayne White at 3:29pm June 8
There's always the option of making marriage like any other business contract. You go to a lawyer, establish whatever survivorship and responsibilities are necessary, you sign it under view of witnesses, and viola. Then you can have whatever public acknowledgement or church ceremony you want to make your spouse or in-laws happy, and then proceed to irritate the s#!% out of each other until death or divorce.
Jamie Grimm at 3:55pm June 8
A-fucking-men! Why should anyone have to pay the government to get permission to get married! Vote Libertarian.
Jamie Grimm at 4:31pm June 8
"How are you going to delineate who gets benefits and who doesn't, then?"
Nobody should get any government benefits for simply being married. If you're talking private companies, then it's up to them, not the government.
Rich Cleland at 5:55pm June 8
There's the case for no government, but what about plain old good government instead? If you want to see what less government looks like, check out the states in the south. Their long-term commitment to small government left them with bankrupt schools, poor health systems and a permanent underclass. Since their goal was to create an easily ... Read Morecontrolled population, that no-government thing works great for them. Is that the kind of system being advocated here?
btw, i agree. abolish civil marriage for everyone and offer civil unions to any two adults who seek public recognition for their merger. A contract is a contract.
Michael DeNato at 6:00pm June 8 via Facebook Mobile
it's too bad the gov't HAS to get involved in this. if everyone believed in equal rights then we wouldn't even be talking about this. remember the gov't had to get involved to stop slavery, allow women and minorities to vote, etc.... i guess that's what makes our country so grea, though, everyone has the right to voice their own opinion.
David Johnston at 7:54pm June 8
The only reason government is in marriage is to take a fee for the license. The government could get out of marriage, health care, roads, most social programs, and stick to the limits the Constitution they all swore to: protecting the citizens of this country from enemies foreign and domestic (which means providing a decent military), staying out ... Read Moreof the business of these 50 states (not 57 Barrack), and basically being a tie breaker for issues between the states. That's it, that's all they are supposed to be doing. Instead name one transaction, just one, you can accomplish without paying the tax man. There isn't one because they've wormed their way into everything.
Back to the marriage point: if one church won't marry two people of the same gender, then they can start their own church and marry off, and Uncle Sam can keep his nose out of it.
Rich Cleland at 12:00am June 9
Where is this no government utopia I hear so much about? I do see a successful nation that operates under this philosophy. The only time I've even heard of it tried is at the end of the Communist Manifesto.
It seems a bit disengenuous to tell government you don't need them to build all the roads and hospitals now that it already provided them.
Besides, in any complex understanding of what it takes to defend a nation against an enemy it would be clear that it needs to ensure that citizens have access to basic health care to make sure they're healthy enough to fight, an education system which gives its citizens the tools to make informed decisions at the polls about when to fight, and take steps to safeguard the economic fortunes that can afford the just wars of national defense. By your definition, the reach of the government would be quite a bit more comprehensive than even now.
Josh Brown at 12:35am June 9
Who has spoken of "no government utopia"? Reading through my status and the comments, there are calls for less government, less intrusion, but no one here has said that the government should be abolished. Good government, these days, Rich, would seem to be an oxymoron no matter which way you lean in the spectrum.
Certainly, you cannot sit at ... Read Moreyour computer while you type, and dream dreams of a day where the federal government has complete and total control of every aspect of your life. That is statism, and with the break-neck pace at which this US federal government is currently usurping untold amounts of power from free enterprise, it is fair and safe to say that statism is their goal.
If they gain control of healthcare as a federal program, they will have the ability to control MUCH more of your life, dependent upon how much your choices will impact the potential health care risk you pose. Sounds ridiculous? So did the federal govt. owning GM, a year ago.
David Johnston at 5:30am June 9
Anybody think a bunch of egg heads in DC can decide how to spend your money better than you can on things like health care, schools, roads, and other semi-important stuff? Assuming you take a paycheck, check the gross versus what you take home. Now think about the astronomical taxes you pay every time you put a gallon of gas in your car, the ... Read Moreproperty tax on your house, the sales tax (city, sometimes county, state, and coming soon federal) you pay every time you buy something. The over reach has happened, it's here, it's both sides of the aisle who have done this.
And Rich, I do think I or a private sector entity can do a better job of educating my children and maintaining the roads I use, as well as running the hospitals.
Question: which public sector restaurant do you go to on Saturday evening? Do you prefer the federal foods, or the State Sandwiches? Oh yeah, you don't line up for a government cafeteria on the weekends (yet). The private sector is better because of competition
Rich Cleland at 9:38am June 9
Is it just me or are we witnessing a massive corporate fail whale right now? Unfettered markets have failed in the housing industry, energy production, the financial markets and the auto industry. Costs in the corporate-dominated health insurance market are spiraling out of control. Millions of American jobs have been sent overseas because ... Read Moreshareholders wanted double-digit profit margins and corporate leaders got fat bonuses to achieve them.
Rather than proving that the government is over-reaching by stepping in to try and save millions more american jobs at GM, why doesn't it show that corporate leadership is inherently shortsighted, serving the narrow interests of a small number of very rich people to the potential detriment of the people who are counting on their jobs at GM to feed their kids.
Rich Cleland at 9:49am June 9
The government currently uses the private sector to supply troops and reconstruction in Iraq. Because of market forces, they have to pay those truckers five times more than an army private makes to deliver the goods in a war zone. It costs more and, as a private citizen, that driver can refuse to run those supplies up to the front lines where they ... Read Moreare needed. This increased reliance on the private sector to provide for the common goods has cost the taxpayers billions more in Iraq.
Government is an opportunity to pool resources to try and serve the public interest. These people work for us. If they aren't doing their job, we can and should fire them.
Did the people in California get to fire the CEO of Enron when he starved them of power to jack up the prices? Do cancer patients have an opportunity to replace the board at their insurance company which, after taking their dutifully paid premiums every month, built a bureaucracy whose singular purpose was to deny claims?
David Johnston at 10:38am June 9
Wow, Rich, where to start? Housing failed because Jimmy Carter signed the Fairness in Housing act strong arming mortgage companies into giving risky loans to unqualified people. Bill Clinton doubled down on this. Fannie and Freddie cooked the books, then their executives got out just before the bubble popped. If we had a good media some of the ... Read Morefolks who pocketed 90-million in Fannie money could be questioned, they now work for Obama. W. Bush was wrong to enact TARP, and Obama is throwing more money down that hole. Capitalism provides big rewards, but with BIG risks. One of those risks is failure, then your assets are bought up and somebody else has a go of it. The ONLY reason GM is in the hands of the feds right now is the UAW and the money that helped get Obama elected. Nearly all the "fail whale" as you call it can be traced back to the feds monkeying with capitalism and not allowing the markets to work, including Gov Gray Davis trying to price control energy in CA.
Their governments already do? And yet when someone can afford to, they rush right into the United States for the BEST health care available on the planet.
As I said before, I'm not an anarchist, there is a role for government. FDA, FCC, FAA, and some others that make sure minimum standards are met are fine, necessary even.
But you're out of your mind if you think the UAW has made concession after concession to keep the auto industry going. Their wages, pensions, layoffs, ability to hire/fire, and nearly every other aspect of management/labor relationships is skewed badly. I have friends who work at a Chevy dealership here in Des Moines. They share with me the innane policies the UAW has passed (like when a line is shut down for re-tooling or due to overstock, the workers can come in and sit around and still pull 90% of their salary, please tell me that's useful and "making concessions" to keep the company going).
The real scare right now is that this administration has brushed the line between private and public sector aside and now they get to lord over who lives and who dies. At least ten banks want to (have TRIED to) give the TARP and Porkulus money back. Obama won't take it. Now why could that be? He says "we don't want to run the financial sector." Then he takes over the financial sector. Do please tell me why the feds won't take the money back and get out of the private sector's business.
And you want to talk about deregulation? Yes, I've seen the articles protecting your Obama from getting his sacred hands dirty in the economic mess that he is making worse with each dollar spent. You guys want to reach back thirty years or so and blame Reagan for deregulating banking. Yeah, because from that decision (bill was proposed by a democrat and passed by a democrat majority Senate and House, but let's not worry about details, right, just blame Reagan), but from that decision to present day no other decisions or issues occurred. No, not dot com bubble, no decisions to NOT build energy infrastructure, no meddling in what cars should be made. Nope none of that happened.
Face it, Obama is screwing the pooch and no amount of spin is going to save him from the inflation and double digit unemployment. And what's scary? I think he wants it this way so he can continue to pull power into the feds.
Rich Cleland
June 9 at 12:27pm
I don't believe I said anything that would give the impression that I fault Democrats more or less than I fault Republicans. Rather, I agreed with you about the Democrats and added what I thought was evidence that both sides have created this mess we're in.
I think politicians acted the way they did to support corporate interests to the detriment of citizens because corporations were paying their bills and padding their pocketbooks.
You don't think it is a bit ironic that you deride my attempt to spread the blame across the political structure to include the ills of deregulation by saying that "reaching back thirty years" to blame Reagan (whom I did not mention) was ridiculously simplistic? Especially in light of the fact that i was only responding to your claims that Jimmy Carter (thirty-FOUR years ago) caused the collapse of the housing and finance industries?
I do.
David Johnston
June 11 at 6:47pm
Rich, ironic name since you obviously want the government to get more of your money than you do, deregulation of an industry allowed for a myriad of different decisions and things to happen, some of them good (lowly cube dwelling citizens such as myself to start investing in the stock market via funds, 401K, 403B, etc.), and some of them bad (corporate execs not playing by the rules and running for the hills with ill gotten funds).
Carter's decision had no good in it. Well, the intentions might have been good, to provide everyone with the "American Dream" of owning a home. But none of the consequences of these good intentions were good ones. Bad loans were made, then more bad loans were made. The worst part was that federally controlled Fannie and Freddie KNEW about these decisions and instead of being the whistle blowers they were set up to be, they acted more like the corporate execs you demonize and they pocketed the profits and bailed. Clinton accelerated this little balloon, but the industry itself ultimately imploded because for the last 3-4 years of the housing boom products like zero interest loans, and refinancing every two years were taking place ... and again Fannie and Freddie did NOTHING.
So, yes, I think it's fair to say the Fairness in Housing Act has a DIRECT link to present day housing woes. Did the industry members help it along? Oh sure, but only after they saw Fannie and Freddie were going to sit idle and soak up as much profit as they could.
Bottom line is that I trust human nature, capitalism, and competition FAR more than I trust some DC hack to make decisions that impact my life. Leave as much of my money in MY pocket and let me decide which food to buy, which car to drive, what charities to support, which school to send my kids to, how to invest for my retirement, etc. The feds want a piece of ALL those decisions, and that scares the hell out of me for now and for the future.
Rob Schebel at 11:43am June 8
How are you going to delineate who gets benefits and who doesn't, then?
Josh Brown at 11:47am June 8
I don't know- but I'd rather the federal government didn't have the power over it.
J.R. Ward at 11:48am June 8
As much as I agree with you... I do think the government is much better suited to deal with this than religious organizations.
Rob Schebel at 11:48am June 8
Universal health care would solve that problem.
Josh Brown at 11:52am June 8
But JR, the religious organizations don't run marriage. When was the last time someone had to get a marriage LICENSE from the church? They don't. Many people are still using the old traditional religious ceremonies, but often, they don't have any say in marital law, licensing, or who can/can't get married. And really what I'm saying here is ... Read Morethat as long as two people want to get married- why does the government have anything to do with that? Doesn't seem much like a governmental matter, does it? Someone please list out all the tremendous benefits that the federal government gives us for being married. Last I checked, tax wise, there is a marriage PENALTY.
Rob Schebel at 11:53am June 8
Generally, you have to be married under the law to share insurance benefits with your spouse and children.
J.R. Ward at 12:00pm June 8
The Church use to administrate the "laws" for marriage.. and I'm glad they don't today. There have to be "rules" for contracts and the best option for that right now is the American Judicial system unless someone can come up with a better option OR not make marriage a binding contract... But that wouldn't make it the special bond that it is then. Hell I don't know I've been single all my life and I'm more than happy not getting married anytime soon... *laugh*
Daniel Brown at 1:21pm June 8
Universal health care will solve nothing but the extra cash I have left at the end of a month. We need less government in stuff like marriage, healthcare, and every other damn thing..
Jessica Bell at 1:28pm June 8
I don't like the government telling me which "charities" to donate to... when they take my money, and give it to someone else, isn't that a simplistic form of charity? There should be checkbox I can check/uncheck. As far as marriage is concerned... I don't have an answer, but everything shouldn't be tied to it. Just because a system worked 50 years ago doesn't mean we have to make it fit now, right?
Josh Brown at 1:30pm June 8
Aye, Jess. The less government involved in our lives, the better. Take a look at your tax forms, and tell me you want that level of hell for your medical coverage. That won't reform health care- it will make it impossible.
J.R. Ward at 1:38pm June 8
Yeah.. tax forms are messed up... I think people should just give what they want and hope that our government can run the country on charity donations.
Josh Brown at 1:39pm June 8
Well, you CAN do that :P but that's in addition to what they'll automatically take.
J.R. Ward at 1:41pm June 8
ok.. I'm liberal but not stupid.. *laugh* I'm not giving any donations to the government...
Lewayne White at 3:29pm June 8
There's always the option of making marriage like any other business contract. You go to a lawyer, establish whatever survivorship and responsibilities are necessary, you sign it under view of witnesses, and viola. Then you can have whatever public acknowledgement or church ceremony you want to make your spouse or in-laws happy, and then proceed to irritate the s#!% out of each other until death or divorce.
Jamie Grimm at 3:55pm June 8
A-fucking-men! Why should anyone have to pay the government to get permission to get married! Vote Libertarian.
Jamie Grimm at 4:31pm June 8
"How are you going to delineate who gets benefits and who doesn't, then?"
Nobody should get any government benefits for simply being married. If you're talking private companies, then it's up to them, not the government.
Rich Cleland at 5:55pm June 8
There's the case for no government, but what about plain old good government instead? If you want to see what less government looks like, check out the states in the south. Their long-term commitment to small government left them with bankrupt schools, poor health systems and a permanent underclass. Since their goal was to create an easily ... Read Morecontrolled population, that no-government thing works great for them. Is that the kind of system being advocated here?
btw, i agree. abolish civil marriage for everyone and offer civil unions to any two adults who seek public recognition for their merger. A contract is a contract.
Michael DeNato at 6:00pm June 8 via Facebook Mobile
it's too bad the gov't HAS to get involved in this. if everyone believed in equal rights then we wouldn't even be talking about this. remember the gov't had to get involved to stop slavery, allow women and minorities to vote, etc.... i guess that's what makes our country so grea, though, everyone has the right to voice their own opinion.
David Johnston at 7:54pm June 8
The only reason government is in marriage is to take a fee for the license. The government could get out of marriage, health care, roads, most social programs, and stick to the limits the Constitution they all swore to: protecting the citizens of this country from enemies foreign and domestic (which means providing a decent military), staying out ... Read Moreof the business of these 50 states (not 57 Barrack), and basically being a tie breaker for issues between the states. That's it, that's all they are supposed to be doing. Instead name one transaction, just one, you can accomplish without paying the tax man. There isn't one because they've wormed their way into everything.
Back to the marriage point: if one church won't marry two people of the same gender, then they can start their own church and marry off, and Uncle Sam can keep his nose out of it.
Rich Cleland at 12:00am June 9
Where is this no government utopia I hear so much about? I do see a successful nation that operates under this philosophy. The only time I've even heard of it tried is at the end of the Communist Manifesto.
It seems a bit disengenuous to tell government you don't need them to build all the roads and hospitals now that it already provided them.
Besides, in any complex understanding of what it takes to defend a nation against an enemy it would be clear that it needs to ensure that citizens have access to basic health care to make sure they're healthy enough to fight, an education system which gives its citizens the tools to make informed decisions at the polls about when to fight, and take steps to safeguard the economic fortunes that can afford the just wars of national defense. By your definition, the reach of the government would be quite a bit more comprehensive than even now.
Josh Brown at 12:35am June 9
Who has spoken of "no government utopia"? Reading through my status and the comments, there are calls for less government, less intrusion, but no one here has said that the government should be abolished. Good government, these days, Rich, would seem to be an oxymoron no matter which way you lean in the spectrum.
Certainly, you cannot sit at ... Read Moreyour computer while you type, and dream dreams of a day where the federal government has complete and total control of every aspect of your life. That is statism, and with the break-neck pace at which this US federal government is currently usurping untold amounts of power from free enterprise, it is fair and safe to say that statism is their goal.
If they gain control of healthcare as a federal program, they will have the ability to control MUCH more of your life, dependent upon how much your choices will impact the potential health care risk you pose. Sounds ridiculous? So did the federal govt. owning GM, a year ago.
David Johnston at 5:30am June 9
Anybody think a bunch of egg heads in DC can decide how to spend your money better than you can on things like health care, schools, roads, and other semi-important stuff? Assuming you take a paycheck, check the gross versus what you take home. Now think about the astronomical taxes you pay every time you put a gallon of gas in your car, the ... Read Moreproperty tax on your house, the sales tax (city, sometimes county, state, and coming soon federal) you pay every time you buy something. The over reach has happened, it's here, it's both sides of the aisle who have done this.
And Rich, I do think I or a private sector entity can do a better job of educating my children and maintaining the roads I use, as well as running the hospitals.
Question: which public sector restaurant do you go to on Saturday evening? Do you prefer the federal foods, or the State Sandwiches? Oh yeah, you don't line up for a government cafeteria on the weekends (yet). The private sector is better because of competition
Rich Cleland at 9:38am June 9
Is it just me or are we witnessing a massive corporate fail whale right now? Unfettered markets have failed in the housing industry, energy production, the financial markets and the auto industry. Costs in the corporate-dominated health insurance market are spiraling out of control. Millions of American jobs have been sent overseas because ... Read Moreshareholders wanted double-digit profit margins and corporate leaders got fat bonuses to achieve them.
Rather than proving that the government is over-reaching by stepping in to try and save millions more american jobs at GM, why doesn't it show that corporate leadership is inherently shortsighted, serving the narrow interests of a small number of very rich people to the potential detriment of the people who are counting on their jobs at GM to feed their kids.
Rich Cleland at 9:49am June 9
The government currently uses the private sector to supply troops and reconstruction in Iraq. Because of market forces, they have to pay those truckers five times more than an army private makes to deliver the goods in a war zone. It costs more and, as a private citizen, that driver can refuse to run those supplies up to the front lines where they ... Read Moreare needed. This increased reliance on the private sector to provide for the common goods has cost the taxpayers billions more in Iraq.
Government is an opportunity to pool resources to try and serve the public interest. These people work for us. If they aren't doing their job, we can and should fire them.
Did the people in California get to fire the CEO of Enron when he starved them of power to jack up the prices? Do cancer patients have an opportunity to replace the board at their insurance company which, after taking their dutifully paid premiums every month, built a bureaucracy whose singular purpose was to deny claims?
David Johnston at 10:38am June 9
Wow, Rich, where to start? Housing failed because Jimmy Carter signed the Fairness in Housing act strong arming mortgage companies into giving risky loans to unqualified people. Bill Clinton doubled down on this. Fannie and Freddie cooked the books, then their executives got out just before the bubble popped. If we had a good media some of the ... Read Morefolks who pocketed 90-million in Fannie money could be questioned, they now work for Obama. W. Bush was wrong to enact TARP, and Obama is throwing more money down that hole. Capitalism provides big rewards, but with BIG risks. One of those risks is failure, then your assets are bought up and somebody else has a go of it. The ONLY reason GM is in the hands of the feds right now is the UAW and the money that helped get Obama elected. Nearly all the "fail whale" as you call it can be traced back to the feds monkeying with capitalism and not allowing the markets to work, including Gov Gray Davis trying to price control energy in CA.
Their governments already do? And yet when someone can afford to, they rush right into the United States for the BEST health care available on the planet.
As I said before, I'm not an anarchist, there is a role for government. FDA, FCC, FAA, and some others that make sure minimum standards are met are fine, necessary even.
But you're out of your mind if you think the UAW has made concession after concession to keep the auto industry going. Their wages, pensions, layoffs, ability to hire/fire, and nearly every other aspect of management/labor relationships is skewed badly. I have friends who work at a Chevy dealership here in Des Moines. They share with me the innane policies the UAW has passed (like when a line is shut down for re-tooling or due to overstock, the workers can come in and sit around and still pull 90% of their salary, please tell me that's useful and "making concessions" to keep the company going).
The real scare right now is that this administration has brushed the line between private and public sector aside and now they get to lord over who lives and who dies. At least ten banks want to (have TRIED to) give the TARP and Porkulus money back. Obama won't take it. Now why could that be? He says "we don't want to run the financial sector." Then he takes over the financial sector. Do please tell me why the feds won't take the money back and get out of the private sector's business.
And you want to talk about deregulation? Yes, I've seen the articles protecting your Obama from getting his sacred hands dirty in the economic mess that he is making worse with each dollar spent. You guys want to reach back thirty years or so and blame Reagan for deregulating banking. Yeah, because from that decision (bill was proposed by a democrat and passed by a democrat majority Senate and House, but let's not worry about details, right, just blame Reagan), but from that decision to present day no other decisions or issues occurred. No, not dot com bubble, no decisions to NOT build energy infrastructure, no meddling in what cars should be made. Nope none of that happened.
Face it, Obama is screwing the pooch and no amount of spin is going to save him from the inflation and double digit unemployment. And what's scary? I think he wants it this way so he can continue to pull power into the feds.
Rich Cleland
June 9 at 12:27pm
I don't believe I said anything that would give the impression that I fault Democrats more or less than I fault Republicans. Rather, I agreed with you about the Democrats and added what I thought was evidence that both sides have created this mess we're in.
I think politicians acted the way they did to support corporate interests to the detriment of citizens because corporations were paying their bills and padding their pocketbooks.
You don't think it is a bit ironic that you deride my attempt to spread the blame across the political structure to include the ills of deregulation by saying that "reaching back thirty years" to blame Reagan (whom I did not mention) was ridiculously simplistic? Especially in light of the fact that i was only responding to your claims that Jimmy Carter (thirty-FOUR years ago) caused the collapse of the housing and finance industries?
I do.
David Johnston
June 11 at 6:47pm
Rich, ironic name since you obviously want the government to get more of your money than you do, deregulation of an industry allowed for a myriad of different decisions and things to happen, some of them good (lowly cube dwelling citizens such as myself to start investing in the stock market via funds, 401K, 403B, etc.), and some of them bad (corporate execs not playing by the rules and running for the hills with ill gotten funds).
Carter's decision had no good in it. Well, the intentions might have been good, to provide everyone with the "American Dream" of owning a home. But none of the consequences of these good intentions were good ones. Bad loans were made, then more bad loans were made. The worst part was that federally controlled Fannie and Freddie KNEW about these decisions and instead of being the whistle blowers they were set up to be, they acted more like the corporate execs you demonize and they pocketed the profits and bailed. Clinton accelerated this little balloon, but the industry itself ultimately imploded because for the last 3-4 years of the housing boom products like zero interest loans, and refinancing every two years were taking place ... and again Fannie and Freddie did NOTHING.
So, yes, I think it's fair to say the Fairness in Housing Act has a DIRECT link to present day housing woes. Did the industry members help it along? Oh sure, but only after they saw Fannie and Freddie were going to sit idle and soak up as much profit as they could.
Bottom line is that I trust human nature, capitalism, and competition FAR more than I trust some DC hack to make decisions that impact my life. Leave as much of my money in MY pocket and let me decide which food to buy, which car to drive, what charities to support, which school to send my kids to, how to invest for my retirement, etc. The feds want a piece of ALL those decisions, and that scares the hell out of me for now and for the future.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
She did her job with the enthusiam of an emlpoyee
She did her job with the enthusiam of an emlpoyee - young woman
waiting for two shortround dogs to take a crap outside the posh old
nursing home.
waiting for two shortround dogs to take a crap outside the posh old
nursing home.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Re: readers
I agree, except that there are some nuances to the "user" distinction that help to better shake apart the previous paradigm. I think "reader" connotes a uni-directional process of information reception. "Consumer" is a more active descriptor than reader and one that evokes a clearer relationship for targeting products to demand markets, but it still carries too much baggage related to the role of passive reception.
I think the Times is trying to adopt "user" to 1) change their own internal expectations of the part their customers/readers/consumers have to play in the product, and 2) change the self-perception of the reader such that they see their own role as active and participatory.
Users can make things. Consumers take things off the shelves and don't expect to put anything on them. If the product is gone one day, the consumer moves to the next brand on the shelves. But, if they start putting their own product on the shelves under a particular brand, they get more involved and have more at stake if that brand fails.
I might describe it as the "I am Spartacus" effect (have you seen that movie?). It was a very successful part of the Obama campaign. The brilliance of the campaign was that it convinced supporters that there was an opportunity and even an expectation for them to put something on the shelf under the Obama brand. Then they could see his failure as their own failure because they were in effect co-producers.
Of course, the downside for the campaign or any other organization that employs the super-user model (facebook comes quickly to mind) is that, once engaged, the organization must sacrifice unilateral action in favor of community-directed (or at least, directed-community) action.
That being said, perhaps user is still not the right word either. Maybe the Times should think about words like "co-producers," "citizens," "journalists," "developers," "colleagues," "citizen reporters," "editors," "members," "participants," or "comrades" to describe their readers. Many of these suggestions, of course, would never fly at the top-down power command structured New York Times.
Companies with strict hierarchical structure can't engage in this new art because they are systematically prohibited from ceding any power to communal control. The Times's one-to-many structure where managing editors beget senior editors beget editors beget reporters doesn't even have a socket for the community to jack in. Reporters are the most public face of the company, but the community can't come in there because reporters have no power to share. There is almost no public face for the editors, so no easy access comes there either.
This has long been a chronic problem for the news media. The traditional acknowledgement of this problem has come in the form of a public editor who is supposed to review input from the readership, find an answer, and publicly report the findings. While the public editor role is important, it has not been largely successful and it doesn't get you to Spartacuses it just engenders stone throwers.
The Times is THE elite news organization in the country. Unless they are willing to expose the Grey Lady to the muddled, chaotic advances of every citizen suitor, changing the semantics is not going to change their fate. The Daily Kos lets any member write their own diaries and several times a day, the editors talk about and promote the works of individual diarists in the main content section of the page. At times it's slutty, ranty journalism to say the least, but it also produces information, creates conversation and community, not to mention a rabid fan base willing to open their pocketbooks to support the Kos and many of the causes it supports.
Nobody seems to be talking about the DailyKos dying.
I think the Times is trying to adopt "user" to 1) change their own internal expectations of the part their customers/readers/consumers have to play in the product, and 2) change the self-perception of the reader such that they see their own role as active and participatory.
Users can make things. Consumers take things off the shelves and don't expect to put anything on them. If the product is gone one day, the consumer moves to the next brand on the shelves. But, if they start putting their own product on the shelves under a particular brand, they get more involved and have more at stake if that brand fails.
I might describe it as the "I am Spartacus" effect (have you seen that movie?). It was a very successful part of the Obama campaign. The brilliance of the campaign was that it convinced supporters that there was an opportunity and even an expectation for them to put something on the shelf under the Obama brand. Then they could see his failure as their own failure because they were in effect co-producers.
Of course, the downside for the campaign or any other organization that employs the super-user model (facebook comes quickly to mind) is that, once engaged, the organization must sacrifice unilateral action in favor of community-directed (or at least, directed-community) action.
That being said, perhaps user is still not the right word either. Maybe the Times should think about words like "co-producers," "citizens," "journalists," "developers," "colleagues," "citizen reporters," "editors," "members," "participants," or "comrades" to describe their readers. Many of these suggestions, of course, would never fly at the top-down power command structured New York Times.
Companies with strict hierarchical structure can't engage in this new art because they are systematically prohibited from ceding any power to communal control. The Times's one-to-many structure where managing editors beget senior editors beget editors beget reporters doesn't even have a socket for the community to jack in. Reporters are the most public face of the company, but the community can't come in there because reporters have no power to share. There is almost no public face for the editors, so no easy access comes there either.
This has long been a chronic problem for the news media. The traditional acknowledgement of this problem has come in the form of a public editor who is supposed to review input from the readership, find an answer, and publicly report the findings. While the public editor role is important, it has not been largely successful and it doesn't get you to Spartacuses it just engenders stone throwers.
The Times is THE elite news organization in the country. Unless they are willing to expose the Grey Lady to the muddled, chaotic advances of every citizen suitor, changing the semantics is not going to change their fate. The Daily Kos lets any member write their own diaries and several times a day, the editors talk about and promote the works of individual diarists in the main content section of the page. At times it's slutty, ranty journalism to say the least, but it also produces information, creates conversation and community, not to mention a rabid fan base willing to open their pocketbooks to support the Kos and many of the causes it supports.
Nobody seems to be talking about the DailyKos dying.
From: "spaceman@fiolink.com" <spaceman@fiolink.com>
To: Rich Cleland <rcleland@wisc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:31:20 PM
Subject: RE: readers
They should just skip straight to "consumers". That's the final stage of abstraction.
Consumer = the person who uses your product / service
Customer = the person who purchases the product / service
Influencer = the people who influence the decision of purchase, either positively or negatively
-----Original Message-----
From: "Rich Cleland" <rcatuw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:46pm
To: "Mike LaVigne" <spaceman@fiolink.com>
Subject: readers
Thought you might find this interesting. NYT have redetermined their "readers" as "users."
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=137060
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=137060
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)