The Truth As I See It

GOP Mothers

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:40:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

In today’s New York Times, columnist Gail Collins writes (apropos Vito Fossella’s second-family scandal):

As The Washington Post noted, this was on the same day that House Republicans moved to reconsider a unanimous vote commemorating Mother’s Day. It all had something to do with a procedural rebellion, but I think we can file that under the extremely large category of Unfortunate Republican Ideas.

Well, probably unfortunate, because one doubts the GOP’s motives. Still, a vote commemorating Mother’s Day had no place in Congress to begin with! The nation remains at war in two countries, we have major economic issues to face, and a mighty long list of other problems stemming from seven years of George W. Bush as president. So why is anyone in Congress, from either party, spending any time at all holding votes – symbolic or otherwise – about Mother’s Day?

Because Mother’s Day, alas, will happen with or without Congressional approval.

Though now that the door has been opened, perhaps we should push through it: perhaps Congress formally revoking Mother’s Day is not a bad idea – as long as it’s equal opportunity legislation and we scrap Father’s Day, too.

My thoughts on the holiday are here (and my thoughts from last year are here).

Dumb Debacles

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:19:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

Debacle #1: Delusional proposals for a gas tax holiday

Seriously: the Clinton and McCain proposals to suspend the federal gas tax for summer 2008 have very little likelihood of becoming law. There are so many problems with this proposal – from encouraging more driving rather than more fuel conservation to draining millions of dollars from federal highway maintenance funds – and so few real benefits, that even Congress will have trouble getting behind this giant ball of sickly-sweet pandering.

Still, on the off chance that it does succeed – at either the state or federal level – and if prices do drop (contrary to predictions), Americans should know that they will not simply be buying gas on a free market. That market will be played by investors who will see in the declining prices an opportunity to hedge certain bets against future prices and supplies of gasoline.

And so? Americans should hedge their bets, too. If the gas tax is suspended, people in communities across the country should pool their resources and buy large quantities of gasoline to store and save for later – for some time after Labor Day 2008, when the taxes on gasoline will have resumed. Buying five or 10 gallons for personal use, for a lawnmower or a chainsaw or an ATV, is quite normal. Buying five or 10 times that amount is less normal, but is also manageable – especially in the many suburban and rural locations in the United States where storage space is readily available.

In effect, Americans who buy and store gasoline for later would be participating in the commodities market the way that traders in Chicago and New York do, hedging their bets about the future price of fuel (which seems likely only to increase). In fact, enterprising Americans might even be able to engage local fuel companies in helping them, in exchange for a small profit (a profit smaller than the tax itself) in exchange for safely storing this fuel.

And the results? Two things would happen. First, Americans who do this would ensure for themselves a greater supply of cheaper gasoline well-past the expiration of the tax holiday, thus putting even more pennies in their pocket. Second, since Americans who support the tax holiday clearly believe that the tax should not be in effect anyway ... well, buying gasoline “futures” this way would deprive the tax authorities of even more revenue, by artificially extending the scope of untaxed gasoline beyond the planned time frame.

In fact, even for ardent conservationists who try hard not to use gasoline: if there’s a gas tax holiday, this idea still makes sense. So prepare to “save” up, America! Plus, it’s a great way to stick it to the man (or woman) running for president who might some day need the tax revenue they are currently and cavalierly trying to eliminate.

***

Debacle #2: Senator Hillary Clinton’s refusal to quit, Senator Barack Obama’s inability to finish her off

Last night, Senator Hillary Clinton lost her opportunity to surge ahead; she failed miserably, by losing North Carolina broadly, and by winning Indiana according to the slimmest of margins. (And thanks to the Democratic Party’s rules, such slim victories have only proportionate value.) With this latest pair of wins and losses, a few news reports note that the Clinton campaign is preparing to do battle in the one place where Mrs. Clinton stands any chance at all: the boardroom of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). She wants the party to count the delegates she claims to have won, from Florida and Michigan, which violated party rules and had non-competitive primaries.

If, like me, you believe that the DNC needs to make this decision according to rules – and not politics – please e-mail DNC chairman Howard Dean at Deanh@DNC.org to make your thoughts known. Here is the text of the e-mail I sent earlier today:

Dear Howard Dean:

This morning’s news carries several stories regarding the Clinton campaign’s plans to push to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan. While the Clinton gang claims that this is only “fair,” it hardly seems fair to either candidate since neither formally campaigned in both states, and Senator Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

Regardless, it is time for you – as leader of this increasingly divided and preparing-to-lose political party – to take a stand on this issue.

The question of these delegates is (clearly) of the utmost importance to Senator Clinton, because she is not winning other state delegates the way she expected. The question of these delegates is also (clearly) of the utmost importance to Senator Obama because including Michigan and Florida would change his current lead in the race.

But Democratic voters – like me – need to be able to believe that whatever the decision on these delegates, it was made not by the candidate with the biggest arm-twisting ability, or the biggest perceived advantage in November. It needs to be very clear that the decision has been made by the leadership of the Democratic National Committee and according to an open, clear, and understandable set of rules. And that is, after all, what the rules are there for in the first place.

What are you waiting for?

It Won’t Happen

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:45:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

Yom Ha-ha-ha: A very personal response, or, Why We Will Never Obliterate Iran

Regardless of whatever Senator Hillary Clinton says, the United States will not “obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel. There are close to 70 million people in Iran; there are about 7 million in Israel. There are, in total, about 10 million living Jews, primarily in Israel and the U.S. – versus something on the order of 1 billion Muslims, throughout the Middle East, Asia, and the U.S., too. Based on the numbers alone, it is clear that the U.S. would never nuke (or otherwise “obliterate”) Iran: the prospect of inciting that much anger and political instability on a nearly global scale, is too great. But more on all this later. First...

Thursday, May 8, 2008 is Yom Ha’atzmaut, when Jews around the world will celebrate Israel’s independence day. If it isn’t clear to my readers already, well: I have take issue with such things. Ironically, my biggest concern lately has been one of allegiances. I say “ironically” because in general I do not like jingoistic approaches to questions of citizenship and national allegiance, or the idea of reducing complicated questions of people’s cultural heritage to simplistic questions of whether they wear a flag pin on their lapel, or what passport they carry. Nor do I necessarily buy into the kind of apocalyptic scenario outlined by books like Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America,” with its retro sensibility of a fascist and anti-Semitic America.

Nonetheless, I find the American Jewish fetishization of Israel, and its anniversary, upsetting. I take issue with the fact that American Jewish organizations send newsletters and e-mails regarding their Yom Ha’atzmaut events, but not about their July 4^th celebrations. Wait; maybe that is because many of them don't have July 4^th celebrations. Remind me: in which country do we live? If there is, within the American Jewish community, one issue that is perhaps more taboo than any other, this is it. Pro- and anti-Israel positions are debated, but questioning the whole premise of the Israeli enterprise and our role in sustaining it is largely off limits. This is undoubtedly a complicated subject; no one wants nuance, and I get that; nuance is complicated, and takes time. I will try anyway.

In my heart-of-hearts, I believe in the Zionist idea. But I do not believe that its implementation and maintenance can or should come at the expense of other (non-Jewish) human lives – that makes us Jews as bad as, yes, the Nazis. As the child of a Nazi refugee, that is a comparison that makes me deeply uncomfortable. Moreover, I find it sad that American Jews go to such lengths in using a kind of Talmudic logic to define and defend why ghettoizing and oppressing the Palestinian people is acceptable. Somehow, I really don’t think a nation-state that oppresses others, or is dependent on a superpower capable of threatening to “obliterate” its enemies, was really what Theodor Herzl had in mind back in 1896.

Nor do I believe that being a Zionist is, or needs to be, about changing my national allegiances. I am an American, and I say that with pride. Let the Israelis celebrate their anniversary. Just because I’m Jewish – even a Zionist Jew! -- does not mean it is “my” anniversary. It is not, any more than Hatikvah is my national anthem.

***

Now, back to Iran. Senator Clinton’s idiotic remark does usefully highlight a few important points. First, no matter what else she says, she can pander like the best of them – because if that remark isn’t pandering, to American Jews and to non-Jewish “friends” of Israel, I don’t know what is. The United States has rarely acted for so-called humanitarian reasons; we did not do so in World War II, we did not do so for Iraq, and we won't in the event that Israel is attacked. Second, and even more critically, the remark suggests how little Senator Clinton has learned despite five years of our failed war in Iraq: it is simply unimaginable that any clear-thinking person would propose attacking Iran after the hash we have made in next door Iraq. (Readers can drawn their own inferences from this regarding my views on Senator McCain.) Clinton voted for the war, a vote for which she has refused to apologize; and in this context, that makes more sense. Either that or, again, she is simply pandering for votes. Neither prospect makes her a better candidate for president.

Worse, though, is that it makes me truly and deeply sad to see American Jews so intellectually and emotionally misled by such statements. Saying that the U.S. is a fairweather friend to Israel is a bit of a hypothetical; we do not really know, one way or the other. In its 60 year history, the U.S. has done much to “support” Israel: by blocking votes against it at the United Nations, by giving it money to use to by American-made weapons, and notionally by keeping it under its security umbrella. It is that last bit that is truly untested, for the U.S. has never been called on to act in a protective capacity. (Actually, the one instance when it might have – during the Suez Crisis in 1956 – it declined, forcing Israel and its other allies, the British and the French, to retreat.)

This is not a cynical argument to suggest that Jews in the U.S. are not safe. Rather, it is an argument against the continued delusion and dual-allegiances of American Jews, whose “support” for Israel has long since crossed the line from deep philanthropic generosity to a perversely entangled sense of entitlement vis-a-vis the American-Israeli relationship. A delusion most recently manifested in an absurd posturing of the proposed annihilation of millions of people by a candidate for American president. As pathetic as this is for Senator Clinton, it speaks even more badly of the inadequacies and insecurities of American Jews.

Testing

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:12:00 +0000

Hi, all. Blogger, the Google-owned system that I use to "publish" this site, is giving me fits right now.

If you have tried to read this site in the last 24 hours and had problems doing so:
a. apologies
b. stay tuned

Thanks.

Winning & Losing

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:58:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

When Vince Lombardi said “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”, he clearly had not had occasion to focus on the Democratic Party’s primary process. Or maybe the process was different several decades ago; now that would be an occasion to yearn for the good ol’ days.

The 2008 Pennsylvania presidential primary has popped – and possibly phizzled (to carry the alliteration two steps too phar). Despite crowing over her victory on Tuesday, Senator Hillary Clinton’s win probably needs quotations marks around it: it is a “victory” on the most relative of scales, since Senator Barack Obama secured more than 40% of the delegates available, again adding to his overall lead in the race for the nomination.

Indeed, saying that Clinton “won” should imply an altogether different outcome, one in which it is equally apparent that Obama “lost.” Back to sports: in what game does the loser walk away with more than 40% of the available winnings, get called a loser – and get to continue playing? Poker, perhaps. Otherwise, none that I can think of. Most games played with a competition-ending series, like baseball, count losers as losers and winners as winners: lose 4 games, even by no more than one point per game, and you’re still out.

Not for the Democrats. One could argue that this is a classic case of American-liberal waffling, an inbred discomfort with competition, the kind that makes Democrats bad at things like wars and better at things like entitlement-program coddling. One could also argue that this shows the value of the Republican Party’s “winner take all” system, where winners are winners and losers go back under the rocks from whence they’d earlier emerged.

That might all be true. In the case of Clinton v. Obama 2008, this unending, miserable, painful competition is as much about Senator Clinton’s desperation-encased ego as anything else. She needs to win – in the actual sense of the word – in order to validate the years of personal and professional losses she suffered before, during, and after her husband’s presidency. (Her $109 million fortune apparently won’t scratch that itch satisfactorily.)

Well, think of it this way: what could be more Clintonian than trying to redefine loss as a victory? I suppose, as with “is,” it simply depends on how one defines the words. That right there might be the best rationale against electing the Senator from New York to higher office.

On Our Backs

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:16:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

Last week, the news came out – with the release of Senator Hillary Clinton’s tax returns – that she and former President Bill Clinton have earned more than $100 million since Mr. Clinton left office in 2000. Terrific! It’s the American dream! Except for the galling part of this story that few seem particularly interested in: the creation of the Clinton’s fortune has been subsidized by us, the taxpayers of America.

As a former president, Bill Clinton received certain services and support from the United States. A CNN/Money article from 2004 notes that Clinton received more than $500,000 a year in subsidies to maintain his Manhattan office, and that the government pays for his postage, travel, and other expenses. Clinton also has a Secret Service security detail. The Hill estimates the cost of security for active candidates at $38,000 per day. Even if the cost of a Secret Service team for a former president is only 25% that of a current candidate, this still costs taxpayers $3,467,500 per year. Excluding travel costs – likely the single most expensive additional cost – that means taxpayers are subsidizing Bill Clinton’s life to the tune of more than $4 million each year. (He also gets a pension of more than $170,000 per year – which might not sound like much, but when combined with Hillary’s $150,000 Senate salary comes out to a nice, reliable monthly total even before all of their extra earnings are calculated.)

Not to belittle the effort required to be Bill Clinton, but having most of one’s expenses covered by the American taxpayer surely makes it easier to earn extra cash. Nor should we single out Clinton: George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale are all out there and, in one way or, are another taking advantage of these taxpayer subsidies. (That Bush, Carter, Gore, and Quayle were all wealthy before taking office is hardly an excuse.)

It is high time we re-thought this whole approach. Former presidents and vice presidents deserve a pension, and when they perform services specifically on behalf of the U.S. government, we – the taxpayers – should cover their expenses. Beyond that, these ex-officers of our government should be required to reimburse the U.S. Treasury when the focus of their activities is private income generation. I do not begrudge Bill Clinton his >$150,000 speaking fees or the generous advances he has received for his books, or for that matter George H.W. Bush’s lucrative involvement with a major investment group, or Al Gore’s various income-producing ventures. Using their significant position to personal advantage while pursuing these activities as private citizens is fine, but taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the creation and maintenance of their family fortunes while ours are slowly drained as a result.

Sears Responds

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:38:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

After my post the other day about trying to order a Kenmore water filter from Sears ... and after sending a note to the only two e-mail addresses for Sears contacts I could find, for a pair of Chicago-based PR people ... along with various reporters and well-known retail analysts ... and after sending hard-copies of my column to various executives at Sears Holdings Corporation ...

... I got a reply yesterday, in the form of an e-mail, from a woman named Stephanie at something called “National Customer Relations Executive Support.” The e-mail asked me to contact her so that she could “assist [me] in getting this resolved if possible.” There was a toll-free number.

Call I did yesterday afternoon; I left a message, and got a call back a couple hours later. Stephanie said she had read both my e-mail and the web post, and found the situation disturbing. She acknowledged that there was clearly some work to be done in terms of customer support and systems development for the Sears.com site. More importantly, she said she had contacted the manager of a local Sears, who was able to tell her the corresponding water filter cartridge part number – and he told her he would send me two free cartridges if I bought the filter unit. (I had, all this tsuris notwithstanding.) Stephanie took my address and said the replacement filters would be shipped to me.

I want to resist the temptation to draw a big-picture “moral” out of this story. I wrote my original piece because I was frustrated, annoyed – and flummoxed – by the systems Sears has in place. On the one hand, I think it’s great that Sears has a “National Customer Relations Executive Support” team to help deal with these issues. On the other hand it raises some questions both about normal levels of service, and about how the average customer would ever be able to take advantage of “Executive Support.”

In making a rather public stand, and putting time and energy into contacting various people, I was able to get more attention. But one clearly should not have to do that. I hope this is a further prod to Sears to make the changes to their systems and infrastructure that Stephanie herself acknowledged as being important.

I'll let you know how the water filter is, once we get it installed.

Sears, Please Hold

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:28:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

The tap water in our building has been going downhill lately. It might be because the city has shut the water off a few times lately – and every time it comes back on, the pipes are flush with sediment. Or maybe the building’s own diligent plumbing efforts are the culprit, as 50+ year old piping is replaced – and again, there is more sediment in the water. Buying gallon after gallon of drinking water is not especially efficient, either in terms of price, storage, or use of plastic, so I have been looking into a filter for the kitchen sink. Consumer Reports gave good marks to two affordable, under-the-sink units made by Kenmore, an in-house brand of Sears. I looked, I did some additional investigating, and I decided to buy the Kenmore 2-Stage Drinking Water Filter, Model #38461.

I also wanted to order extra replacement filter cartridges; after all, why pay for shipping twice? Except: not so fast, buster. That information is virtually a trade secret!

***

Sears has been in the news a lot lately. Chairman Eddie Lampert was profiled in The Economist and the New York Times, and neither painted an overly optimistic view of the business, despite efforts to compare Lampert to investor Warren Buffet. Sears’ profits are down, the company has been criticized for some stove-related product safety issues, and there’s no polite way to put this, but: when was the last time you shopped at Sears?

In my youth, the store was a staple retailer. Appliances came from Sears, and rough-and-tumble clothing came from Sears. Craftsman-brand tools were what we had on hand for any household project, back in the day before “DIY” was a lifestyle rather than just how we did things around the house. Which is why, when Consumer Reports gave the Kenmore water filter a good rating, I thought nothing of trying to order it.

***

Placing an order for the water filter unit itself was no problem. The Sears.com web site indicated the product was available for shipping, and to complete the process would have been only a few clicks. But as I said, I wanted to order replacement filter cartridges, too. Except: the page for the filter does not provide the part number for the corresponding replacement cartridges. Really – go look for yourself. Even worse, if you search the site for “water filter,” you get more than 50 results, replacement filter cartridges included; but none of them indicates which model water filter they fit. No, not even in the so-called “Specs” section, which provided little information about any of these products.

In the interest of rapid resolution, I clicked on the little link that says “Call for Product Questions,” right above the product information (and shown on the picture here, too). A new window popped up, offering me an immediate call-back by putting in my phone number. I put my number in, and sure enough, within seconds the phone rang. “Cool!,” I thought, a system that works! A nice gentleman named Andrew answered, asked how he could help me, and I told him what I wanted; he said he would transfer me to the parts department, which would be able to answer my question. He said he’d put me on hold, which he did ... and then an automated female voice started asking me questions about which department I needed. At first I thought this was just part of the hold process, but then I realized I’d been transferred into this voice-activated system. I made a selection, the system responded that it would transfer me, and then after a few seconds I got a voice telling me my call could not be completed and I should hang up and try again. What?

I did just that. I went back to the web site call system, put in my number, and within seconds I had Andrew on the phone again. I told him I’d been cut off, repeated what I wanted, and he apologized. He said he’d put me on hold again while he got an actual person in the “Parts” department who could answer my question. A few seconds after that, I had a young woman with a bad, hard-to-hear connection asking me questions. Her first question? My phone number. Her next question? My last name. After that? My address.

How on earth is this relevant to a simple question: what is the matching replacement filter cartridge for the Kenmore 2-Stage Drinking Water Filter, Model #38461?

It isn’t relevant – and there wasn’t an answer. I do hope someone from those mysterious “Quality Assurance” teams goes back to listen to the recording of this call, because it’s a doozy. Eventually, the woman understood that I was trying to find a corresponding part, for which I didn’t have the model number. That it was because I didn’t have the model number, that it was because the model number for the replacement cartridge isn’t listed on the Sears.com filter unit page, that I was calling for help.

She couldn’t help me. Her suggestion? Call a store. Apparently, Sears stores – the actual stores – have a cross-referencing catalog that tells them which parts go with which products. Apparently, Sears.com staff do not have this nifty resource available to them. Just to make sure I understood this scenario properly, I asked the question just that way: the store has information that you don’t have? Yes, she said. The connection was too crappy and her voice too soft for me to tell whether there was a hint of embarrassment in this answer. If not, there should have been.

***

I called Sears, the store at the Galleria Mall in Poughkeepsie, New York, which I knew I’d be able to visit in short order if I wanted. I got an automated voice that offered me a list of “popular” departments. Which department does a water filter fall under? I had to call three times before I figured out that even though “plumbing” wasn’t one of the menu items automatically listed, the system would respond when I asked. (I had already tried saying “Help,” which got me an “I didn’t understand your request” response. Saying “Customer Service” got me transferred into some broader Sears system that wasn’t specific to the Poughkeepsie store.)

I asked for “plumbing,” and the system transferred me. The phone rang, and rang, and rang some more. Eventually, it was answered: by an answering machine that told me that no one was available to help me, but that if I left a message with my name and number, someone would call me back.

No, thanks, Sears. At this point, I’m not sure I would speak with Mr. Lampert if he called me personally. What else is there to say? In its article from 29 January, the Times quoted a memo Lampert wrote in which he said “I remain confident in our ability to ultimately succeed, even if there are steps backward along the way.” If any retail business analysts out there were looking for an example of what he meant by “steps backward,” I think I have an answer for you.

***
UPDATE: Sears responded to me. Read about that here.

In My Tribe

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:34:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

The other day, I hit upon a fundamental organizing flaw in human civilization. It is not religion, or an ongoing series of battles over resources like food or energy, or even territorial disputes and the arbitrary nature of nation-state borders. The problem is an apparently human instinct towards tribalism, which dictates our response to almost every situation, from the basic to the most challenging – and affects all of the elements I mentioned above, and more.

Simultaneously, I realized that this tribalism will bind people together through bad decision-making as much as good: that any given tribe’s sense of self provides the fuel for its self-protective actions, even in the face of changes that might also be considered potential (self-)improvements. Tribes are terrible at realpolitik – to put it mildly – and even worse at recognizing opportunities. Protection of the tribal status quo will always come first, even if that “protection” is itself a kind of long-term suicide.

If these observations on the nature of tribes sound rather simplistic to you – Hutu vs. Tutsi, anyone? the crazy battles both between and within the Sunni and Shia Muslims of Iraq? – then consider some other examples below.

***

I was listening to a recent episode of This American Life when this concept of tribes, and tribal suicide, started to formulate. “Act Two. The Plan,” from Episode #350: “Human Resources,” is described (in part) as follows: “American cities have gone through a massive wave of gentrification in the last few decades. To some people, it's not a natural ebb and flow of the real estate market, but a plot, by rich, mainly white people, to take over the neighborhoods of poor, mainly black people.” The segment focuses heavily on Washington, DC; shortly after hearing this segment, The Economist ran a small article about new developments in Harlem, while the New York Times ran one about low-income housing in DC.

The segment from This American Life is disturbing, a word that might be an understatement. The idea of a plot, a conspiracy, is problematic – but that is not the worst part. No: worst of all is the apparently self-destructive nature of tribal preservation, presently loudly and clearly: the people – the “poor, mainly black people” – would rather remain poor than risk the change that might come with community improvements.

“Gentrification” is a complicated concept; some would surely argue that it has tribal (read: racist) overtones of its own. And while gentrification has benefits, there can also be corollary problems: when a neighborhood is “gentrified,” housing costs go up, which certainly makes it more difficult for those who cannot afford the new prices. Still, the implicit assumption for those in the This American Life segment is that the negatives of gentrification absolutely outweigh the positives: the assumption seems to be that blacks simply will not be able to participate in the general improvement of their neighborhoods, won’t benefit from the influx of businesses (and jobs) that is usually part of gentrification, and won’t gain anything by a general set of improvements to the area, whether that is a reduction in crime or an increasing in property values. Thus, if they cannot benefit, then gentrification is is simply a plot against them.

I grew up in Washington, DC, during a period when the city was known as the “murder capital.” When parts of the town were so bad that few people I knew (black or white) would even drive through them, let alone visit. When the majority of the city preferred to elect an incompetent mayor subsequently convicted of drug use than ... well, than just about anyone else, because just about anyone else might have been better, but might also have been from a different tribe.

At root, the issue here is one of tribalism: of preferring the misery of one’s own company to the benefit that might come from change brought by others. Even if that change, like the gentrification of neighborhoods, might improve life in a variety of ways.

***

A segue, for clarity and to head off some sense that there is a tribal undertone to the above. Do not misunderstand me: this is not about race, not about one group of people making poor decisions because they are poor or black. The tribalism I am writing of here affects almost all of us in some way, including those who are wealthy – and white.

To wit: Clinton vs. Obama. What could be more tribal, more viscerally ... ridiculous, than the current fight for the Democratic presidential nomination? A fight filled with irony: not only because of the degree of similarity in the candidates’ positions; not only because by battling each other both candidates make it easier for their Republican opposition; but because Senator Obama has pitched himself as post-racial, in a way that means, really, post-tribal, while Senator Clinton presumed her tribe to be dominant.

It turns out that it takes only one tribe to create a dispute; in this case, it is that of Senator Hillary Clinton. The issue? The Clinton tribe is itself predicated on an earlier, long-standing dispute of its own: the us vs. them / left vs. right battles of the previous decade (and century). Senator Clinton desperately needs to rehash these fights – and win them – in order to validate her own sense of self. Losing to Obama does not mean just losing the chance to run for president. It means losing the opportunity to prove that her tribe, the Clinton tribe, was right: right throughout the entire term of her husband’s presidency, right during the time when they were being investigated for Whitewater and TravelGate and everything else, right when they defended Bill for having oral sex with an intern, right even when Bill was enduring impeachment proceedings. More than anything else – even more than her not-insignificant need for power – Clinton’s desperate desire for the presidency of the United States is based in this ancient dispute.

And it is why Senator Clinton cannot stand it when Senator Obama talks broadly about the idea that Americans of differing views might actually get along with each other. Where is the tribal fun in all that? Ari Berman, in an article from a recent issue of The Nation on the smear campaign against Senator Obama, included the following: “‘No one knows if it's the Clintons, a rogue agent or a Rove agent,’ says Congressman Steve Cohen, a Jewish Obama backer who represents a largely black district in Memphis.” As Berman details, there are many forces – tribes – lined up to attack Senator Obama, and as we know when it comes to tribal politics: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

***

What I find of equal interest – and equally saddening – is the apparent inevitability of tribalism, even in the face of an intellectualism that might otherwise seem poised to overcome it. My last example involves something much more personal: my own tribe. I belong to a synagogue, a Conservative-movement synagogue with a liberal, New York feel to it. Let’s put it this way: a synagogue liberal enough that a couple of years ago our rabbi talked about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan on Yom Kippur, rather than about Israel.

Still, even in this intellectually liberal environment, the default reference point for global tragedy tends to revolve around Israel. Services include prayers explicitly for the United States and for Israel, but not for the success of the United Nations, or peacekeeping missions in Darfur, or for the hope and expectation that conflicts everywhere will be resolved, or for other nations (or American states) where terrible things might be happening at that moment. As Americans, praying for the United States might be fine on its own. As Americans, praying for the state of Israel seems downright odd, and frankly, simplistic. Purely tribal.

Consider: Most American Jews have something in common with any random non-Jewish American walking down the street, something that puts the Americans, together, on a different plane from most Israeli Jews: the average American has never served in the military – fewer than 1 in 10 of us have, according to Foreign Policy – whereas Israel has compulsory military service. While many Americans (Jews presumably included) shudder and complain about Islamic nations where Sharia law is followed, we seem to ignore or forget that as much as Israel has a secular government, it also has portions of society controlled – with government backing – by the extremists of Judaism.

It is a sad thing to say, but here is one of the biggest problems of the tribalism of American Jewry: we fetishize Israel. New Yorkers have a parade to celebrate Israel, use Israel (and both implicit and explicit accusations of anti-Semitism) as a focal point for global political analyses, and share vivid, internet-driven information about our oppression, real and imagined.

Will American Jews support raising money to help the victims of Darfur? Maybe. But a couple of years ago, the New York newspaper The Jewish Week surveyed readers about support for rebuilding the homes and businesses of Israeli Arabs, following Israel’s failed war against Hezbollah.

Israeli Arabs – citizens of Israel, no less than the citizens of New Jersey are fellow Americans next to the citizens of New York – and still, if you have read this far, you can probably guess the results of the survey by now.

In the voting, tribalism won out. So much for citizenship – and so much for a civilized society.

Reverential Outrage

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:04:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

Back in the confusing days following September 11, 2001, a lot happened and much was said, including this:

“God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve...” “... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”

Can you guess who said this outrageous bit of nonsense? If you answered – given the current news hysteria – that it was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor to Senator Barack Obama, you would be totally wrong. The statement above was made by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell, on Thursday, September 13, 2001, on an appearance on Pat Robertson’s show “700 Club.” (The full transcript is available here via Common Dreams; Falwell, and Robertson, were also quoted extensively in The Washington Post here, and many other places, including Beliefnet here.)

Hysteria is a good word for what has happened in the last few days, as Senator Obama has been called upon repeatedly to reject statements made by Wright, his long-time pastor, about the September 11^th attacks, and about American foreign and domestic policy. Wright was quoted as saying things like “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards,” and “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Both quotes taken from the New York Times here. See Agence France Press reports too.)

There is a certain similarity to these statements, a thematic connection driven by the apparent belief – on the part of Falwell and Wright – that the attacks against the United States were part of some divine plan for retributive justice. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the details, the underlying message is hard to miss: that we have been attacked because god believes we have acted immorally. Depending on one’s perspective, you might be inclined to agree with Falwell, or with Wright; both pairs of statements lean towards the absurd. Of course, Wright’s comments might be attracting more attention now because elements of them are harder to dismiss: we have supported Israeli oppression against the Palestinians, and we did for many years support the oppressive and racist Apartheid regime in South Africa. (And while I’m not black, I can understand intellectually the sense of rage at aspects of American society that feel threatening and oppressive to black Americans, particularly young men.)

There are also differences – and significant double standards – in play. In 2001, no one required President George W. Bush to “reject” or “denounce” Falwell for his outrageous statements. Although the same Washington Post article notes that a “White House official called the remarks ‘inappropriate’ and added, ‘The president does not share those views’,” there was no effort to push beyond this simple statement. Robertson was not driven off the air, Falwell was not forced to retire, and while one might argue that god got his / her own back against Falwell, neither did anyone demand the en masse renunciation of their views by their many followers and parishioners. Indeed, some people continue to believe that much of what Falwell said had more than a little truth to it: for example, see this review of God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, by Steven J. Keillor.

Which makes one wonder why it is different this time around, for Wright and Obama. Obama rejected his pastor’s statements, in clear and unmistakable language – terms much stronger than Bush used for Falwell – saying that they are “inflammatory and appalling,” and that he “reject[s] outright the statements by Rev. Wright.” (He did the same with Louis Farrakhan, very publicly, during a televised debate.) Yet the news cycle continues, with story after story after story to remind audiences that Obama’s pastor said something we should take note of – and draw scrutiny to whether Obama has done enough to distanced himself from it all. Bloggers, like this one, raise similar questions. (Via.) True: Falwell was not Bush’s pastor the way Wright has been Obama’s. But Falwell and Robertson were crucial to rallying the religious right in support of Bush’s candidacy, and wielded greater influence in electing Bush than Wright will ever have by supporting Obama.

There are likely many unpleasant things said by many clergy across the country, statements that others might find offensive depending upon their own personal, religious, and political views. Nor do people necessarily and implicitly support every argument that their clergy puts forward, even as they continue to attend that person’s religious services. (For a good essay about this in a Jewish context, read M.J. Rosenberg, here; via The Nation.) It is important to know whether candidates for president of the United States agree with statements made by their clergy, and to make an effort to assimilate those perspectives into our broader understanding of the candidate. However, we should also be cautious about the application of a double standard, of demanding more – more renunciation, and more soothing words – from one candidate just because we find unnerving speeches that touch directly upon the racism that continues to be a plague on our nation.

Kristolize That Thought

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:47:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

I love writing – and one reason is for the challenge of engaging with an issue without necessarily disclosing my own beliefs too much. (Although I often do). The semi-cryptic, wholly clear but hard to interpret, quickly dashed-off lines often feel the best in the process of writing; whether they have a healthy life beyond that is more difficult to determine.

This is all very much on my mind after reading William Kristol’s rather amusing column in today’s New York Times, “McCain’s Daunting Task,” about the opportunities that await their pursuit by Senator John McCain in his campaign for the presidency. Kristol’s piece contains lines such as:

“George Bush [approval rating] looks likely to remain stuck in the 30s. Factor in the prospect of a recession (the bad housing and job market reports at the end of last week were politically chilling) and the fact that a large majority already thinks the country’s going in the wrong direction.”

Hmmm. In framing the observation as he has, it seems like Kristol is implicitly disagreeing: quietly asserting that, in fact, the country is not going in the wrong direction. And yet...

“If any Republican can defend conservative principles and policies, at once acknowledging Bush’s failures while pivoting to present his own biography and agenda to the voters, McCain can.”

Wait – Bush has had failures? Now I’m confused! I would really like to see Kristol articulate these failures publicly, in the Times or elsewhere, in a clear and open fashion. The last time I checked, the GOP (Kristol included) seemed hell-bent on denying there were any problems with the Bush administration, and generally seemed most anxious to sweep it all quietly under the rug. The crumbs of history.

However, if Kristol’s opinion about the capability deficient Bush administration is hard to put one’s finger on, it only gets murkier with this doozy:

“He [McCain] could persuade the most impressive conservative in American public life, Clarence Thomas, to join the ticket.”

Well I’ll be! Justice Clarence Thomas is the most impressive conservative in American public life the way that Chauncey Gardiner was an important businessman and political analyst. Thomas, it should be noted, says almost nothing from the bench. He asks few questions of those before the Court. He authors few opinions of his own, concurring or otherwise.

But the value of this whole column suddenly becomes quite clear: Kristol is giving us important insight into the state of the GOP these days. For apparently, in Kristol’s mind, the definition of an impressive conservative is one who says little, asks few questions, and – when push comes to shove – does even less.

The Sin of Omission

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:59:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

The proposals presented by both Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to reform America’s health care insurance systems – in order to guarantee quality and affordability – are misleading, inadequate, and probably unworkable. They may be the best Americans can expect , but that still is not good enough. The bottom line: neither candidate is willing to define publicly what “affordable” means, and for whom. Both candidates have wasted thousands of words on the issue, but neither of them provides an estimated, projected cost for insurance per person (or family) per month, based on their plan. To state the obvious: that makes it difficult to judge whether these programs would, if enacted, be affordable – even though affordability is claimed as a hallmark by each candidate.

When Hillary Clinton says her plan is about “Improving Quality for All and Achieving at least $120 Billion Per Year in Savings Nationwide,” or Obama addresses the “$2 trillion” spent on medical care and notes that “Prescription drug errors alone cost the nation more than $100 billion every year,” well ... these numbers may be right, but I suspect they are essentially irrelevant to most people. To the extent that Americans budget at all, they surely do not do so in years, or in a manner that takes into account the GDP of the United States, how much health care costs in total across the country, or even whether interest rates will rise or fall a half-point in the next quarter. Most people budget in weekly or monthly increments, while even sophisticated people have a hard time understanding what $2 trillion really means in practical terms. Much as with Social Security, health care is both an emotional and practical issue; the practical component is about what kind of information people understand. What most citizens want to know is: what’s it gonna me cost each month?

Health care, you will recall, is supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s issue, the big one on which all of her I-care-about-people attitude, and her I-have-experience message points, were supposed to converge. Still, a review of the Clinton health care plan – on her web site, here, and in a downloadable PDF – reveals a distinct lack of specifics, especially where costs for the average family are concerned. Right now, I’m paying about $4,800 per year – $400 per month – to insure myself and my child. Will Clinton’s plan raise or lower my insurance premiums, and if so, by how much? The best we get from Clinton is an unspecific quote from someone else’s research: “The Business Roundtable estimated $2,200 in national health savings for the typical family,” based on making some of the changes Clinton proposes. This is buried on page 11 of the PDF of her plan, and it is not exactly a comforting or promising statistic.

Despite Clinton’s complaints that Obama has been weak on specifics, his plan is clearer than hers, and the Obama campaign has put together a separate document of Frequently Asked Questions which seems to recognize the complexity of the issue in a way that the Clinton camp misses. However, the best we get from Obama is this: “Through partnerships among federal and state governments, employers, providers and individuals, the Obama plan will save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures...” (The Obama plan PDF, page 2.) Again, this seems better than the Clinton plan, not only because it’s $300 more, but because it comes on page 2 (and is repeated several times) rather than being buried on page 11, amidst many of Clinton’s other hifalutin’ statistics. Read the sentence again, though, and there is still a lack of clarity in its intent: it will save on medical expenditures, but does not say whether that includes health insurance premiums, nor does it explicitly say what the premiums would be, per person or per family per month.

In a ridiculous column in the New York Times a few weeks ago, Paul Krugman sided with Hillary Clinton’s plan because “the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.” He then quotes a study by an economist who specializes in this area, and writes “Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.” That does sound like a big difference. But notice that phrase “newly insured”? Krugman wrote it but does not explain it. By implication it seems to mean that those of us already with insurance – and paying more than $4,400 or $2,700 – won’t see much discount. In effect, our higher existing premiums will be subsidizing the costs of the cheaper plans. Excuse me, but: how is this better?

Largely unmentioned in all of this is the political reality of legislation in the United States. The Clinton and Obama plans read like pie-in-the-sky wonkery, as if an 11 year old was writing about his legislative intentions. So much here is dependent on Congress that it is almost hard to take it seriously as a campaign issue. Presidents, even power-abusing ones like George W. Bush, still have limitations.

If the candidates – either of them – want to win on this issue, they need to talk specifics. Clinton and Obama should stop quoting outside experts, and instead put better numbers to their health care plans. Tell me, now, what you project my insurance premiums will be, per person for a family of three, for the first year your plan rolls into action. Tell me, now, what your plans will cover, specifically, and what my out-of-pocket deductible will be. Come up with a number and stick to it. Commit yourself to it. Campaign on it. And then let the rest of us – the voters – decide whether these plans are actually “affordable,” according to our family budgets, not yours.

Highly Contested

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:18:00 +0000

I suppose that somewhere in the United States there are people who aren’t talking about politics.

I am quite sure I don’t know any of them. If that makes me out of touch, so be it.

Just when it seemed like the Democratic dogfight was getting boring and redundant, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama staged another debate this week that should have recaptured everyone’s attention – and reminded us once again of how intellectually flimsy politicians can be. Senator Clinton’s “best” lines were either totally canned and pre-planned and thus less effective (e.g., “And, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox.”), or insightful in an neatly off-putting way.

Much has been made of her “valedictory” comment at the very end of the debate, but moments earlier Clinton said something that should cause even more concern: “And I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted.”

That statement contains many different layers, but it is worth unpacking two of them: the implication that Clinton believes she has been called by God to run for the presidency, and the acknowledgment that she has taken aspects of her life and success “for granted.” The latter sentiment might have been inadvertent, a kind of grammatical misstatement, but I don’t think so. Rather, I think Clinton does take many elements of her life for granted. The sense of entitlement is partly why her health care initiative failed during her husband’s presidency: she practiced the same kind of secrecy that Dick Cheney did with his energy task force. It is also why she now appears so desperate in the clinch: almost every aspect of her theoretically inevitable candidacy, and November 2008 victory, has vanished. Good riddance!

The former part of Clinton’s sentence – this sense that she “was called by [her] faith” – should trouble us all deeply, but it should trouble the Clinton loyalists the most. After all, the last presidential candidate who believed as firmly in the role of his faith in his political destiny is the incumbent that most of America cannot wait to see leave office: George W. Bush. Senator Clinton is still using (and promoting) her “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it’ll take another Clinton to clean up after the second” line, but I do not think America is ready for another divinely inspired president. And anyway, it strikes me as beyond the scope of most gods to take on a mess like ours.

Then there is the “readiness” issue. Any Clinton supporter who still believes that their candidate, called by her faith to serve, meets or exceeds the readiness threshold that Mrs. Clinton herself promotes, should read Frank Rich’s column “The Audacity of Hopelessness” in today’s New York Times. Rich walks us through the Clinton campaign’s failures – from her initial loss in Iowa, to her advisors’ inability to learn from their mistakes, state by state and beyond. He writes “The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.” If campaigns can set expectations for presidencies, then the execution of Clinton’s is hardly a good omen, whether she has god on her side or not.

Senator Barack Obama is still far from perfect. Although he presented much more policy detail in his remarks on Thursday, there are still moments when that politician’s flimsiness breaks through. On health care, for instance, Obama seems fearful of openly embracing the fact that his plan does not mandate health insurance for all adults. This lack of a mandate is important, because it represents the freedom every citizen should have to make a choice about health insurance for themselves. Likewise, it is hard for Obama to completely break away from the potential Republican death-trap on immigration issues; thus, he failed to reject fully the absurdity of building a complete border fence between the U.S. and Mexico. (Because that solution has worked so well in the Middle East, right?)

Nonetheless, Senator Obama has managed to maintain exactly the quality that Senator Clinton lacks: inspiration. Actually, Obama has gone beyond just being inspiring to “inspiring inspiration.” If that sounds redundant, consider the state of political apathy that existed in this country, the ideological boredom that comes from having an entrenched, black-and-white (or in this case, red vs. blue) view of the world. Any politician who can engage and motivate so many different constituencies – to work on his behalf in community after community, to give dollar after dollar in order to beat the erstwhile establishment candidate’s fundraising machine – can clearly lay claim to understanding something bigger and broader about our nation.

It ain’t over until it’s over. That might be Texas, that might be Ohio, or it might have been Thursday’s debate. With any luck, we will all know shortly.

Transfer of Wealth

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:14:00 +0000

While this story is hot:

Today, General Motors announced it's biggest loss ever: $38.7 billion dollars last year.

This comes on the heels of Exxon Mobil announcing record-setting profits of $40.6 billion.

And so, one might say, that this represents a transfer of wealth from GM to Exxon, from recalcitrant manufacturers to robust suppliers. In retrospect, it seems obvious: by resisting a move to more fuel-efficient cars, GM essentially ensured that this would happen. The more people buy cars that burn fossil fuels, the more oil companies will profit; the more car companies resist consumer demand for more efficient cars, the fewer cars they'll buy; but all the cars already on the road, those cars still need gas, meaning still more money for oil companies, and still less money for the car manufacturers.

I have been crapping on General Motors for years, for their less-than-visionary products and their less-than-brilliant management. Even with the introduction of their recent "flex-fuel" products, they still seem resistant to making the wholesale changes to their product line that would ensure they are competitive. I cannot say I am happy that GM lost $38.7 billion; unless you bet short against their stock, it's just plain bad news. But if this spurs stronger action (as it seems to have done already) then maybe something good will come of it - which might mean less use of oil, and lower profits, for the likes of Exxon.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one on this beat... Will Bunch, over at attytood.com, made a similar observation.

Book Review

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:53:00 +0000

Looking for a new book? Read my review of The Age of Shiva, by Manil Suri, just published January 2008 by W.W. Norton, New York.

(Thanks to LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program for the opportunity to review this book!)

Cue the Fear

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:35:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

The news did not receive two-inch headlines, but it was there nonetheless – on the Associated Press wire, in the New York Times and Washington Post, and other many places. To quote the Times quoting Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence: “Al Qaeda was also improving what he called ‘the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.’ — producing militants, including new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets.”

On the question of terrorism on American soil, I am more cynical than others, and less inclined to trust politicians, especially ones whose beliefs are as doggedly partisan as those of President George W. Bush. Intellectually, I want to resist the conspiracy theorist’s mindset that imputes terrible, Machiavellian motives to Messrs. Bush and Cheney. Nor am I in any position to disprove or discount Mr. McConnell’s assertions that America is, once again, an increasingly high-profile target for attacks by Al Qaeda.

Still, I as wrote a few weeks ago: “I cannot shake the admittedly cynical sense that our incumbent administration will engineer an October surprise in order to frighten the nation into electing the GOP candidate – the one who will undoubtedly be cast as the law-and-order choice to save our nation.” A slow news trickle about a renewed capability to attack the United States on the part of our Public Enemy #1 – now, as the presidential race takes on a different shape with a presumptive nominee for the Republicans – fits this pattern. It serves a valuable purpose for the tail end of the Bush administration, shifting focus away from the reeling economy and back towards the fear that provokes bad decision-making on the part of both voters and our Congress. It is also convenient that McConnell’s remarks come at the end of Bush’s time in office – when terrorism will soon cease to be his problem, despite the Bush administration’s failure to capture bin Laden six and a half years after the September 11^th attacks.

This analysis does not require Machiavelli, and it isn’t very hidden. Today’s front page article in the Times even notes this deliberate shifting of the agenda: “As the party began to coalesce around Mr. McCain, Mr. Bush’s remarks were part of a broader Republican move over the last day and a half that has set the stage for a campaign focused on the nation’s security.” Unfortunately for the average American, what this means is a campaign focused once again around invoking and provoking our fears: fears of being attacked, fears of foreigners in our midst who might attack us. The outcome will be an election more likely determined by emotion than intellect – the results of which do not bode well.

Fear And Cynicism

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:28:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

Appealingly, it seems we might be balanced between a moment of great hope and another lifetime of fear, and tilting towards hope. Appallingly – and with all due respect to Senator Barack Obama – we are more likely teetering between another lifetime of fear and an even more problematic, fearful cynicism.

Ever since the Democratic field of candidates began to look strong enough that one of them just might beat a Republican opponent in the November 2008 election, my cynicism started to engender fear. I cannot shake the admittedly cynical sense that our incumbent administration will engineer an October surprise in order to frighten the nation into electing the GOP candidate – the one who will undoubtedly be cast as the law-and-order choice to save our nation. While only one candidate is running explicitly as Mr. 9/11, the others GOPers don’t shy away from proclaiming how tough they would be against any threats, even those poorly imagined.

Since that terrible day in September 2001, I have written a few times that living in fear is no way to live. I still believe that wholeheartedly. (Just as I think that an increasingly risk-averse society means we change for the worse our sense of what in our lives might be worth risking.) In a recent blog post for The New York Times, John Tierney explored a similar issue in “The Endless Fear of Terrorism,” and expressed clear concerns at the end: “... It means (to quote the common phrase after Sept. 11) that ‘the terrorists will have won’ even if they never pull off any larger attacks in the future. But is there any way to avoid decades of angst? ...”

Unfortunately, so long as such visceral fears plays a role in American politics, the answer is likely to be no. So, it seems an all-too-easy leap to make that an October surprise might be enacted – or should I say “permitted” – in order to push the GOP candidate over the top. The worst-case scenario for such a “surprise” is all-too-easy to imagine. It is also easy to imagine that the Bush administration would, in its waning days, allow this terrible event to occur through the same slipshod management that permitted the September 11^th attacks to occur in the first place.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that the president would engineer an attack his own nation. Absolutely not. But in a cynical view of this (very cynical) administration, it is not inconceivable that he would permit others to attack the United States because of what an attack would mean for his party. Another security brief conveniently overlooked, or a failure to translate properly an intercepted message that could tip us off, and the whole election 2008 game plan would change. Even if nothing happened, the carefully timed revelation of a near-miss attack or the arrest of a group of alleged plotters might be enough to push our fearful citizenry into an election day response in the GOP’s favor.

Whether you believe this is a real possibility depends on a few things. Your tolerance for conspiracy theories. How cynical you are. How fearful you are. And how much you believe that the Republican establishment is afraid of losing power, particularly in the wake of almost eight years of incompetent governance by President George W. Bush, his über-Machiavellian Vice President Dick Cheney, and (for six of those years) a corruptly complicit Republican-led Congress. Such predictions have been wrong before: former Senator Gary Hart (among others) thought Bush would declare war on Iran before the 2006 elections, when it was becoming clear that the Republicans would lose control of Congress.

For the sake of the lives that would be lost in another attack on the United States, for the sake of the lives that would be lost by our retaliation, for the sake of our country and its future: I hope I am wrong. That is not the kind of hope Senator Obama talks about, but it feels no less important at this moment in time.

Not Just Baseball

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:11:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

On Monday morning, 7 January, National Public Radio (NPR) ran a story about the controversy and allegations regarding the use of illegal, performance-enhancing drugs by baseball player Roger Clemens. NPR’s story took an important but all-too-rare step: it criticized the nature of a particular piece of journalism, an interview of Clemens by Mike Wallace. For commentary on this issue, NPR reported as follows:

John Sawatsky, a professional journalist who teaches reporters how to do interviews, says he was disturbed by Wallace’s lack of follow-up questions with Clemens.

For instance, Wallace brought up the fact that Clemens’ buddy Andy Pettitte admitted McNamee had injected him with steroids, just as McNamee had testified in the Mitchell Report.

“Andy’s case is totally separate,” Clemens responded.

Sawatsky said Wallace should have asked why it was separate.

“Wallace never asked, ‘What is separate about it?’ He just dropped it,” Sawatsky said.

Of course, this is baseball, not politics – so it’s much easier to ask such questions in that context. For a countervailing example, NPR also ran a story yesterday, 9 January, about the upcoming primary in South Carolina, talking to two local people about the challenges candidates will face in that state. One issue in particular caught my attention: commentator Scott Huffmon’s remarks that South Carolinians are very concerned about illegal immigration – an issue that may negatively affect the chances of Republican candidate Senator John McCain, who is seen as too liberal on this matter.

And so you say: South Carolina is concerned about illegal immigration as a priority issue? According to StateMaster.com, South Carolina ranks 29^th in estimates of illegal immigrants per capita – lower than Arkansas and just ahead of Iowa. (Looked at in total numbers of people, it remains 29^th, too.) Even NPR, in a story they ran in June 2005 about illegal immigrants in the United States, did not list South Carolina among the top states facing this problem, although neighboring North Carolina is mentioned. NPR did not pursue this line of questioning, did not ask Huffmon why illegal immigration is a hot-button issue there, and did not push back on the idea that a state with little in the way of an illegal immigration problem finds this such an animating political issue.

It is a shame, because it would have been more than just interesting: it might have provided genuine insight into McCain’s chances in South Carolina, or might have helped explain a subject that has been a consistent feature of the race thus far, despite being an issue of great consequence in only a few states. Are South Carolinians more fearful for their jobs – and are illegal immigrants the people to fear? Is concern about illegal immigration code for NIMBY-type race and class issues – and have the demographics in South Carolina shifted enough to make these concerns well-founded? It seems crucial that we understand why people believe any issue to be so important to their lives, and that journalists push back on and explore the underlying facts in order to understand voters’ motivations. Doing so would give all the candidates – not just John McCain – opportunities to address issues more substantively (rather than just emotionally) and in a way that reflects the concerns of the voters of South Carolina and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, that such statements go unchallenged is consistent with the general nature of coverage of the political process and the primaries (and caucus) thus far. As always, we face a reduction to very basic issues and themes, combined with a simplistic flip-floppery from one candidate to the other in response to the prevailing winds. Nothing expresses this more than the wide coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton’s very narrow victory in New Hampshire. This was hardly an upset, as the New York Times called it – an upset of what, exactly? – any more than Senator Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa meant he had sewn up the Democratic nomination or conclusively beat Clinton for the nomination. As for the coverage of Clinton’s teary, emotional plea, well: it’s a legitimate news story, but should not be allowed to crowd out the bigger need to explore the underlying concerns of voters and the philosophy that underscores the plans of the candidates.

If we are to elect a new president who will truly lead our nation to a better, peaceful, prosperous future, we need a journalism, and a citizenry, capable of looking beyond the obvious. Beyond a candidate’s cry. Beyond the simplistic evocations of “hope.” We need journalists – and an electorate – who can, yes, “connect” with the politicians, but who can carefully (re)examine their own fears and expectations, too. Because we need to keep reminding ourselves that the 2008 election is as much a referendum on us – on who we are as Americans, and what we believe in for ourselves and the world – as it is about the person we choose to fill the office of President of the United States of America.

Some Small Hope

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:04:00 +0000

You might be inclined to say that the good news is that Senator Barack Obama won the biggest majority of the delegates in the Democratic Iowa caucuses. Fair enough.

But the better news is that Senator Hillary Clinton didn't win. Despite the money spent, despite the hours invested, despite all the glad-handing, Clinton didn't win. Not only didn't she win, she placed third, after John Edwards. All of this suggests that there is a glimmer of hope, however small, that she can be prevented from securing the Democratic nomination. I've written it before, and I'll write it again: I do not believe Senator Clinton stands for anything except her own self-advancement. That is not the kind of person we need as our next president.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee's victory indicates that the GOP seems set to continue it's morphing into the POG: the Party of God. That's a shame for Ron Paul, who secured a respectable 10% showing in Iowa -- and who might do well in New Hampshire -- but faces an increasingly religiously-deterministic crowd of Republicans. At least Paul can always decide to run as a Libertarian.

I am tired of this process, and we've barely begun. I can't wait for New Hampshire, if only for the sense that it means we are one step closer to ending the misery of this interminable campaign "season." Nonetheless, Senator Obama likes to point to the importance of hope - and Iowans have just offered us a tiny little bit of a reason to hope.

Purity, History, Morality

noreply@blogger.com (The Editor) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:02:00 +0000

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

Now that former Senator George Mitchell’s report about steroid use among major league baseball players is out, can we all go back to paying attention to issues that actually matter? Because if there is one thing that truly does not matter, it’s an argument about the use of drugs in the big business we call sports.

Unless you’re a person who likes to fool yourself, the Mitchell report should be about as shocking as Captain Renault’s discovery of gambling in Rick’s. Athletes have been using “performance enhancing” drugs of one kind or another for as long as there has been human competition. The rationale is simple: they want to win, because winning means lots of money and fame. The real difference for so-called professional sports is that this is one of the few jobs where drugs can positively affect a person’s success.

Moreover, the argument that drugs provide an “unfair” advantage is, itself, rather absurd. Much like in politics, where unseating an incumbent is always harder than winning an open race, successful athletes are harder to beat: their success ensures them better training and tools. Do we consider it an unfair advantage that a wealthy baseball-owning corporation might spend more to support its team than a poorer one? Not really (despite mild regulations designed to change team behavior). Do we consider the player earning $15 million a year to have a competitive advantage over the one earning only $500,000? No. If anything, we expect the goal of a $15 million payday to motivate the poorer player. Somehow we consider these situations normal, and so we lose track of the complicated implications behind the idea that to the victor go the spoils, and turn a blind eye to the costs of such motivational lessons.

We should stop invoking a bogus and unnecessary morality that says that one class of drugs (e.g., caffeine) is ok, and another set of drugs is not. Some drugs are less “valuable” in the context of performance, some are more dangerous and likely to kill you, but all of them ultimately affect our actions – just as the food we eat, our sleep habits, and even our self-perception of success can, too. It would be a shame if an athlete died because of drugs, but no more shameful a problem than an athlete whose hobby involves torturing dogs. The dog-torturer hurts others; the athlete who takes drugs hurts only his/herself – and, possibly, the minds and emotions of those gentle and naïve souls who believed the world was pure to begin with. Perhaps once we let go of the unnecessary morality play around drugs, we can then move on to address the endemic of (actual) cheating that affects everything from standardized testing scores for school kids to our taxes. (And sports too, clearly. ) Those are real issues with consequences for the health and welfare of our nation, and not just for the glorified lifestyles of our much-beloved rich and famous.

UPDATE, 12/17: In the comment below, on the issue of all drugs being equal, I wrote, "It just depends on your perspective about 'drugs' in the first place." Tonight, NPR ran a story exploring whether the Human Growth Hormone (HGH) that some players allegedly took is similar to - and, implicitly, as dangerous as - the anabolic steroids that other players are accused of taking. Listen, and decide for yourself.

UPDATE, 12/23: New York Times sports columnist George Vecsey posted a piece today on this issue, titled "Seeking Role Models And Finding Human Beings." For anyone following this issue, it's worth reading, even if you disagree with Vecsey's perspective, or mine for that matter.